Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Florentino floro (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 18 November 2008 (→Refuting evidence, on my Uruguay edit, notable: rejoinder). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

ACORN again. This needs to finally stop.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overview

Several accounts that have repeatedly come up as likely socks, disruptive, and abusive, and have acquired histories of blocks for bad behavior, have descended upon the ACORN article again. The accounts in question are:

• WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (recently off a long-term topic ban, and immediately back on the topic he was banned from)
• 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts have long since drained all of their allotment of assumed good faith. They have been consistent, persistent, abusive single-purpose accounts, "vote" in a group together (whenever they're not blocked), attack other editors endlessly, and when their behavior finally provokes harsh responses from other editors, they immediately hide behind WP:CIVIL. This is all on a talk page for an article that is currently locked. They are abusive, and useful discussions of content have become impossible. And while proving sockpuppetry without a shadow of a doubt is impossible due to the use of proxy and dynamic IP addresses, there is strong circumstantial evidence of it.

Addendum (by LotLE×talk): Gooddamon's report is accurate and helpful. I would add that Curious bystander is also almost certainly a sockpuppet here, who shows up exactly when WorkerBee7/Kossack4Truth gets blocked (here and earlier on various Obama articles); Marx0728 is, I think, probably a distinct person, but one obviously in off-wiki correspondence with the other accounts and hence perhaps a meat puppet.

• Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marx0728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence

First, the history. I would like to direct administrative attention to the long sequence of incident reports about each user.

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Personal_attacks_and_disruption_by_WorkerBee74 - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked for 21 days. Note my comment near the end, with additional evidence of yet another sock.
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#SPAs_edit_warring_on_ACORN_article - Result: WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive blocked. 300wackerdrive was blocked for 24 hours, while WorkerBee74 was blocked for a week.
3. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 - Suspected sockpuppetry. Closing admin said: "Socking looks likely, but I'm not going to block anyone for month-old violations."
4. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination) - Suspected sockpuppetry. While the results were inconclusive due to the aforementioned IP address issues, administrators suggested filing an incident report if abusive behavior persisted. This is that incident report.
5. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Once_again:_topic_ban_of_user:Kossack4Truth_from_Obama_pages_for_review - Result: Topic ban for Kossack4Truth, which may or may not have just expired (I'm honestly not sure).
6. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page_again - Result: WorkerBee74 basically told to cut it out.
7. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Kossack4Truth_disruption_on_the_Barack_Obama_talk_page - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 72 hours, 4 month community ban initially brought up.
8. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive444#WorkerBee74_again - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked for a week.
9. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth - Checkusers that were inconclusive, but contained evidence of use of similar IP addresses.
10. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page.2C_yet_again - No result that I could see, but obvious report of edit warring.
11. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated_incivility_by_User:WorkerBee74_.28also_a_SPA.29 - Incivility.
12. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 - Concerns of sockpuppetry
13. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive75#User:WorkerBee74_reported_by_User:Brothejr_.28Result:_72_hours.29 - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked 72 hours
14. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive74#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 48 hours
15. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Grsz11_.28Result:_4_days.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 4 days
16. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_reported_by_User:Kossack4Truth_.28Result:_No_violation_.29 - An example of one of many punitive incident reports filed by this group of editors against other editors in good standing.
17. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 24 hours. I strongly suspect the bad report against Lulu of the Lotus Eaters resulted from this report.

In the last few days, all three accounts have descended upon the ACORN article, and prematurely declared consensus for a new version of a section of text. It started with Kossack4Truth's laughable re-entry to the article, followed immediately with an attack on other editors as "bogus" and "tendentious". Shortly thereafter, he "transcluded" WorkerBee74's vote of support for the text, as if the fact that WorkerBee74 is currently blocked makes no difference. Shortly thereafter, this editor just back from topic-ban decides consensus has been achieved, and requests the edit be incorporated into the article by an admin.

Now, along comes 300wackerdrive, fresh off a block, immediately vote-stacking. It degenerated from there.

These three editors are single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. They are probably socks, though possibly meatpuppets as well. They have long since passed the point where any one of them should have been banned for their behavior, regardless of the behavior of both other accounts. Together, they make editing an exhausting and unproductive endeavor. --GoodDamon 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional socks: Since Curious bystander and Marx0728 are now confirmed socks, I would like to formally add them to this report. --GoodDamon 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm just trying to learn from more experienced editors. When I saw Wikidemon closing discussion threads abruptly at Talk:Barack Obama, I did the same. When I saw other editors moving comments around at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, it occurred to me that an admin who previously had no experience with the page may respond to the {{editprotected}} notice. So I started moving comments to make it easier for an unfamiliar admin to determine whether consensus has been reached. It just made sense to me. I would like to see how I'm "vote stacking," or making personal attacks, or doing any of the other things that GoodDamon has accused me of doing. GoodDamon, please post diffs that support this accusation, or apologize. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, "Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?" GoodDamon has already made that suggestion on WB's User Talk page. I'm sure that some who read this are getting tired of seeing the same names on all of these incident reports. I encourage you to fight the urge to "just ban them all" and examine the evidence. Remember that WP:SSP says, "Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other." The editors that LotLE and GoodDamon are complaining about are regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comment by 209.221.240.193 is a confirmed sock of banned user BryanfromPalatine whose extensive career can be read about here ]. It may be of interest to people who know more than me about these matters. The sock notice on that IP userpage was recently removed. I put it back. Someone using that IP was very angry at me on that talk page for restoring it. This IP seems well versed with the goings on of the Acorn talk page despite never having edited there. regardsBali ultimate (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Very angry"? A little bit annoyed, perhaps. The sock notice is from December 2006, and this is an IP address shared by over 17,000 people, so it does seem inappropriate to me. A review of the many links above that GoodDamon has posted, and the recent editing history of the article Talk page and your User Talk pages, reveals that the people he complains about have been engaged in content disputes not only with him and with LotLE, but also with you. So my earlier remark about spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failing to mention mitigating evidence applies to you as well. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I had been wondering about these accounts' possible relationship to BryanFromPalatine. I wouldn't be too surprised if 300wacker, WorkerBee74, and K4T were all BryanFromPalatine socks; even if they aren't, each account has run afoul of many policies, including WP:BATTLE, and I see no reason to keep any of them around. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that 300wacker and K4T have recently returned from blocks, and WB is currently blocked. If any of you can post any diffs from any of them since returning from their blocks that violate Misplaced Pages policy, then I'd support indef blocks for those offenders. But when following K4T's contribs around, I happened to find this little gem at User talk:MastCell by an uninvolved admin, User:EdJohnston: "Nobody asked my opinion, but since ACORN is still full-protected until 15 November, I don't see any urgency. Though Kossack4Truth has shown up on the article's talk page, due to the protection he can't do anything to the article. My personal opinion is that further misbehavior by K4T should lead to an indef. Since returning from his block all he has done is express his curiously emphatic views at the ACORN talk page, and make a few innocuous edits here and there." With that unbiased and uninvolved admin's opinion in hand, let's insist on proof of real policy violations before we go off blocking people. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edjohnston made that comment on November 9th, the day K4T's block ended. Since, on the Acorn talk page, k4t has acted on behalf of banned user (and suspected related sock) workerbee; has moved around other editors comments in, to me at least, a confusing manner (he also doesn't leave edit summaries); he has declared consensus prematurely, and sought insertion of contested information into the article by admins despite being told there was in fact no consensus; refered to the arguments of those disagreeing as "being shot down in flames"; characterized the arguments of others in a content dispute as "bogus" and "tendentious;" called those who pointed out he may be in violation of his Obama-related article topic ban as "dicks;" said he was at the talk page to rescue the article from "its current fucked up condition;" characterizes wording prefered by other editors as "weaseling" and "parsing;" and described other editors efforts as "tendentious" at least 5 separate times in one talk page commentary alone. Again, that's in two days alone. He's been a busy boy.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to sit this one out so I'll just add this diff without comment for now. Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidemon, I confess. I was advising people having disputes with you to "Be extremely polite and use Misplaced Pages policies against" you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You were advising an editor on the verge of a block for edit warring, incivility, etc. - in a thread about his disruption of the Obama talk page - to "use Misplaced Pages policies against them" and contact you off-Wiki about it. Them, being "this group of editors", a cabal who you imagine to be conspiring by email "to file complaints and get us blocked and topic banned" --i.e. me. That looks like a violation of the Obama topic ban, and also canvassing someone to wikigame.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite, and encouraging someone on the verge of a block to obey the rules and be polite. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By mucking about Barack Obama in violation of a topic ban to recruit an editor to do battle against me? Combined with your comments below, and directly to that editor, regarding my supposedly conspiring against you, I don't think so.Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I see that Kossack4truth has edited the Talk page of ACORN 22 times in the last two days, and is now trying to declare victory in a poll where the count of votes may influence the outcome of an {{editprotected}} request. He has been moving comments around on the Talk page. My opinion has changed, and I would now Support a topic ban of K4T from both the ACORN article and its Talk page. Since we are still not clear whether he is a sock, and he creates a large POV wake wherever he goes, an extremely careful participation on Talk would be excused. No way is this behavior acceptable. I assume that K4T's interest in ACORN is due to the Obama connection, but that would be tolerable if he stayed within limits. He has not. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now noticing that I had proposed any further misbehavior should result in an indef, and this is misbehavior, I now recommend an indef block for User:Kossack4Truth. (He is one of those 'last chance' guys, where people had proposed to offer him one more chance. I think he just used it up). EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I say something, Ed? Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) There is really no single diff I can post regarding these 5 editors (or 1 editor, who knows!). All I can say is if anyone spends any amount of time on the articles talk page...a clear pattern becomes plainly visible: POV pushing, vote stacking, comment moving extravaganza and pretty much every one of the accounts has an extensive block history for abusiveness. I recommend introducing Blocky McBlockerson, 7 days minimum, on each one. That way, consensus will be allowed time to develop at the least. In the mean time, I have my own problems on the Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 page. These guys just come out of the woodwork somehow... Digital 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has already been allowed an enormous amount of time to develop for this proposed edit: 11 days. Wikidemon has !voted in favor of it. DigitalNinja !voted in favor of it. GoodDamon also !voted in favor of it at first. It had a 9-3 majority until GoodDamon changed his !vote. As I said on the article Talk page, I've never seen an edit that was more thoroughly discussed, vetted, masticated and ruminated. Three pages of archives have been created to accommodate this discussion of One. Freakin. Edit. What we have here is two editors, LotLE and Bali ultimate, who are obstructing the formation of consensus on the page. Constant baiting and provocation, in the form of false accusations of sockpuppetry, false charges of misrepresentation of sources, nitpicking about the tense of verbs in a quotation from a reliable source (for the love of Gaia), and generally mean-spirited and uncooperative behavior are their hallmark.

On the Talk page of a far more high-profile article with dozens of participants, Wikidemon has moved entire sections around, closing and archiving discussions prematurely. No repercussions for Wikidemon. I'm just trying to move the process along by following his example. Regarding the use of the word "dicks," I was directing these editors' attention to WP:DBAD, which is enshrined in Misplaced Pages lore. (Notice how Bali ultimate mentioned "dicks" without mentioning WP:DBAD. "Spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failure to mention mitigating circumstances." Spot on, I'd say.)

I transcluded WB74's !vote because, months ago, User:Noroton was kind enough to transclude mine. There were no objections at that time.

Otherwise, I have consistently referred to edits, not editors, unlike the complaining editors here who are going out of their way to provoke us. I will also point out that MastCell, the admin who has volunteered as parole officer on this topic ban, specifically authorized me to edit ACORN; and despite my repeated posting of MastCell's authorizing diff on the article's Talk page, these people relentlessly repeated that I had no right to edit there. Consider the poisonous environment these people have created. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Not again. It always ends up with some accusation against me for being on troll patrol. Wikidemon (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just following your good example, Wikidemon. You handle the Talk page at another article with a forklift and people seem to love you for it. You're an experienced editor. What better goal in my Misplaced Pages existence could I have, than to model my Talk page management skills after yours? Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. All this sound and fury, but the edit histories of these accounts, and their endlessly repetitious behavior, speak for themselves. I don't see a need, at least for myself, to respond any further to these attempts to turn this incident report in on itself. --GoodDamon 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry confirmed

• Note Checkuser results show Curious bystander and Marx0728 are the same person but probably different from the others, although from the same city. 300wackerdrive edits exclusively from a workplace previously associated with BryanfromPalatine; Kossack4Truth edits exclusively from a residential IP in the same city, and WorkerBee74 edits exclusively from a Sprint PCS mobile device of some kind. Thatcher 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

could someone notify these "users" on their talk pages or put notices up on their userpages? Not sure of the ettiquitte on this myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. If you review the ACORN talk page, 300wackerdrive supports Marx0728's proposals with near-exclusivity, as does Kossack4Truth. The Curious bystander sock has recently appeared there to vote-stack. Purely from the fact that Marx0728 and Curious bystander are now known to be the same person and being used to support each other, both of those accounts should be blocked immediately. Now, I've noticed that Kossack4Truth doesn't seem to edit at the same time of day as Marx0728. Again, I can only go on behavioral patterns and editing history, but it seems pretty obvious that Kossack4Truth is the account the puppetmaster uses while at home. I'm new to this BryanfromPalatine character, but if the behavioral patterns are the same, then we're probably dealing with a puppetmaster who has grown savvy enough to work some accounts from home, some from work, and some from his mobile device. Sigh... Seems like so much work just to push a POV onto an online encyclopedia. --GoodDamon 14:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, this looks totally like a savvy sockmaster, specially the one editing only from a mobile device (he can afford an internet-enabled device and connection, where editing is imcomfortable, but he can't afford a internet-enabled PC where typing and viewing pages is massively easier? Not even an internet café once in a while? Seriously? Lol) and the non-overlapping of home/work connections. This, plus the WP:DUCK argument, plus the POV disruption, should be enough to block all 5 of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When I think about the literally thousands of hours in talk page discussions going over and over the same contentious material, I'm frankly disgusted if it turns out that this was caused by a group of collaborating socks and meats. What a terrible waste. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My favorite aspects of these high-profile AN/I's are:

1. abusive editors accuse other editors of not assuming good faith.
2. abusive editors accuse regular editors of "trolling" them.
3. abusive editors turn out to be socks.
4. Before the end of it, Wikidemon's name gets dragged into the situation; regardless if he was involved or not.
5. Blocky McBlockerson comes out to play and life resumes as normal for a few short days.

It would really be nice to simply block these troublesome accounts. It's impossible to build a good article when their around pushing their agenda. In this case, I think ignore all rules applies towards pro-actively blocking all their/his accounts for the good of the project, it's editors, and the articles hindered from being approved. Digital 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, all 5 accounts need to be blocked for any movement forward in this articles to take place IMO, and the fact they all have strong evidence of being socks. Digital 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too hasty here. First, my name isn't Bryan. Second, the editing trails of CB and Marx are entirely separate with the sole exception of ACORN. Marx edits random articles apparently, while CB focuses on gay and lesbian issues. I think they are more likely separate people with the same IP address, possibly a university or public library such as the Chicago library system. The accounts were created weeks apart, and stayed on their separate editing trails for several months before their paths finally crossed at ACORN, so they're not meatpuppets either. By the way, the IP address edits above were from my supervisor and his name isn't Bryan, either, but his comment that over 17,000 people share this IP address is accurate. Third, looking at the Bryan edit history, he showed an inordinate amount of interest in Free Republic, which none of us have touched, and no interest in Barack Obama, gay and lesbian issues, or ACORN. All are encouraged to look at the differences. It's true we all appear to be from the Chicago area which may explain why we're interested in Barack Obama. About 10 million other people are also from the Chicago area. Are you going to block all of them pro-actively? 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If they make the same POV pushing, vote-stacking, and WP:BATTLEing that you guys did, then, yes. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Look, I'm not saying I disagree with your positions, I actually do agree (well, to a more neutral extent). However, AN/I is expressly designed to comment on editors. You know that yourself, the Marx guys, CB, and WB74 have all been extremely relentless. The proper thing to do isn't to beat your point into the ground then get uncivil and/or make consensus impossible. Instead, write out a compromise, then the other team will counter, and re-compromise. Eventually, you've learned a little more about their positions, and they've agreed to something you can live with. I constantly have disagreements with editors (especially GoodDamon), but I also respect them and their positions, which makes them, by nature, more willing to listen to my positions and vice versa. Kindness, civility, and less emotion towards the subject is the fastest path to consensus and wikihappiness.

I only recommended a 7 day block (expect for WB74, who is already on a 21 day block...don't know what to do about him), regardless the outcome I think you should consider working on a few non-political articles (or better yet, create some of your own) and even asking the folks your having disagreements with for help. That way, they can see the good faith you show and before you know it some mutual respect might even develop. Lastly, WB74 has expressed his grief in not being able to comment on this AN/I via has talk page here. I personally think his block should remain as his comments here would lead to nothing but a prolonged discussion and frustration for others. Digital 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that at least. But it seems what you're saying is that we're not allowed to get into content disputes, and that if someone disagrees with us, we're just supposed to cave in because we're all from Chicago, and I happen to work for the same massive corporation as BryanFromPalantine? And whenever LotLE and Bali Ultimate get nasty, we're supposed to respond with sweetness and light? I suggest that what's missing here is civility parole for all concerned. Many of the editors commenting here appear to believe that K4T was under civility parole but, try as I might, I find no evidence whatsoever that anyone told him about it. I suggest six months' civility parole for the five editors mentioned, plus LotLE, Bali Ultimate, Scjessey and Wikidemon ... because if you impose civility parole on one side, the other side will see it as carte blanche to increase their baiting and hectoring. This civility parole is explicitly intended to prohibit any comments about any editor's conduct on any article Talk page or User Talk page, and to include, but not be limited to the terms "Obama fanboy," "Obama campaign volunteer," "cabal," "sock," "sockpuppet," or "meatpuppet." The proper venues for such complaints are this noticeboard, WP:AN3 and WP:SSP. Both sides need to tone it down. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I always get dragged into this - every time someone a report involving any of these editors they use the occasion to accuse me of nonsense and blame me for their own behavior, even in this case when I'm editing on a completely different article. Saying that they only did it because I taunted or incited them, or that things are rigged because I get away with stuff and they don't, has been such a routine over so many months it must be part of the meatpuppeting. The difference is that I and others are holding the line against disruption, and they are the ones disrupting. Dealing with a swarm of repeatedly blocked and banned uncivil, edit warring, wikigaming sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, or like minded POV pushers, or whatever this group is, does not imply tit-for-tat sanctions against the long-term legitimate editors who they have decided to battle against. There are not two sides to this. There is no legitimate question of anyone else's behavior here but theirs. Leave me out of it, please. I was patrolling the Obama article, which needed a lot of help just before and after the election, and only made a few passing comments on the ACORN talk page that this report is supposedly about.Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't noticed, WD, but I am cheerfully submitting myself to the same civility parole, under the same conditions. You should as well. If you have any complaints about my conduct or anyone else's, you can make them on this noticeboard, WP:AN3 or WP:SSP. Making them on article Talk pages and User Talk pages poisons the well. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed, and your misbehavior should not subject the editors you antagonize to sanctions. I have also noticed that checkuser has apparently found that you are using a sockpuppet account, and are likely a blocked user who has done this repeatedly in the past. I haven't been the one doing the outing so your complaint is with someone else, but it's preposterous to say that sockpuppet accounts have a right to keep their account pages free of notices, or not to be spotted on the pages they are gaming. There's not much else to say under the circumstances.Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but if they are all the same person, which I think is pretty obvious now, a 7 day block is not sufficient. When you are dealing with a POV-pusher who is so firmly convinced he knows the truth that it becomes perfectly acceptable to that person to run multiple accounts and pretend to be different people who all miraculously join together whenever one's arguments go sour, that person cannot be reasoned with or coached. That person will engage in long-term abuse, and attempt to overcome blocks, because even a day of not being able to push the truth is unacceptable to him. That person will not stop until forced to, and allowing such users to return results in more unnecessary drama and work for everyone else. We -- and when I say "we" I do not mean "me and my sockpuppets" -- are under no obligation to put up with this any further. And now that I've had a chance to review BryanfromPalpatine and that account's history, I think it's overwhelmingly obvious this is no more than the return of a talented puppetmaster. --GoodDamon 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SO, on marc and curious, at the very least one of those accounts have to go, right? As i understand it the checkuser came back positive? As for the claims that one of these socks edits on LBGT issues, well, there's been a transparent effort to make it look that way -- that account pushes commas around on lgbt articles. Marx pushes commas around in other types of articles. Kossack for truth claims to be a daily kos left-winger (despite exclusively pursuing a right-wing political agenda) etc... This puppetmaster (i admit there might be two working in concert at this point) as laughing at all of us thanks to his success in gaming the system. Remedial action drags on, he gets another flight of socks on the launching bad, and whoosh...Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So we're from Chicago. Barack Obama is also from Chicago, and ACORN and its sister organizations such as Project Vote maintain a strong presence here. Does it surprise anyone that the five of us edit articles about Chicago related topics? 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we both agree that blocking should be involved. However, I can't in good conscience recommend an indef block on someone that may not be a sock. However, I do think a long-term block and/or topic ban on WB74, and CB and Marx0728 indef block as abusive socks is perfectly acceptable. 7 days on the rest of them is short, however, I think it will be effective. My reasoning; just within range of being justifiable in the eyes of the users involved to wait around and think about their actions without creating new socks, especially since they'll be spotted and figured out pretty quickly. I'm completely against the use of socks and I personally learned a lesson to that respect. Note my edit history and block log, over a year ago I was blocked for one week using socks to vandalize. In reality, it very well should have been an indef block according to policy, however, User:WJBscribe in his own judgment decided on 7 days. After I was blocked, I went months without even editing and was able to think long and hard about how I feel about this project and the good dedicated editors bring by building something millions use on a daily basis to improve their lives. I have to reflect that same level of optimism that if one questionable editor can be guided to become a value to the community, it's well worth the effort involved. I hate to use myself as an example because I fear it makes me look bad in front of other editors I've come to respect, however thought I'd share my perspective. That being said, the community has every right and is well advised to consider long-term blocks/bans in this case. Digital 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Why do you think 7 days will work when we're probably talking about the same guy who, if we're right, has amassed dozens of blocks since 2006? Even if not connected to this user, when does the death penalty come out for a user like K4T? He's already on his 2nd or 3rd "last chance." More last chances just encourage more gaming. Obviously, you got hot-headed once and learned something. But it didn't take you long. This has been going on not for weeks or months but for years once one looks at the BryanfromPalatine stuff. Of course, nothing will prevent the creation of new socks... but if the guy reforms and edits like an adult, no one will ever know or care he's a ban evader. And if he misbehaves again, he will be caught very quickly. At minimum, let's make him start over, since it will be easier to prove sock-puppetry via two or three or four new accounts (all of whom suddenly develop a passionate new interest in acorn the moment they log in to wikipedia) then via his established habit of using existing accounts and new socks. These socks have reduced my involvement in wikipedia from a productive one to a defensive one. I'm sure i'm not alone in this.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is if conclusive evidence of sharing the same IP is found, along with a pattern in their edits; indef block. Further, I think you suggested the point I was getting at earlier but only clearer; make them start over. If we do that, they'll be easy to stop, we know their location, ISP, etc, so I have no problem with that. In reality, I don't have any issues at all. I'm just reluctant at indef blocking someone who may be better served (and thus better serve the project) via alternative actions. The primary reason is because they'll just go off getting new accounts but this time with a personal vendetta as you said. Ultimately, I agree with your reasoning all around. Digital 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Setting an arbitrary length of time for a block in not necessary. There is already a sensible "escalating block length" mechanism in place. Proven socks should get an indefinite block (as per normal), but anyone else should only be blocked with a length of time that considers their existing block history. Contrary to DigitalNinja's experience, the editors being discussed immediately returned to their troublesome behavior patterns, indicating lengthier blocks are necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx has never been blocked. He only crossed paths once with CB, on an article related to Chicago. Proof of socking is inconclusive. They share an IP address. Thatcher didn't even say that WB74 is from Chicago, only that he edits from a Sprint PCS mobile device; and upon reviewing a previous SSP on him, it's clear that he's not from the Chicago area. Since returning from a block, I've done my best to edit in a polite and constructive manner. I've learned my lesson like Digital Ninja. K4T has been pushy (if you don't like him) or assetive (if you like him). But I continue to believe that civility parole all around would resolve this. Scjessey, you continue to get warning notices on your User Talk page, and not just from the five of us; you get warnings from multiple different editors. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen you disruptive little man: According to Thatcher, check user was conclusive that marx and curious are operated by the same user. They should both be blocked already. Your current guise's history of disruption and gaming (irrespective of your abusive use of other accounts) should likewise have you blocked already. If it was up to me, you'd all be summarily tossed into the brianfrompalatine block log, which has had dozens of socks blocked to date, with sadly no effect on your (the actual persons) behaviour. You've found wikipedia's weak spot -- its slow consensus-oriented dispute resolution mechanisms. Congratulations on wasting all our time (i suspect the real reason you're here is for the drama, rather than the political agenda).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to contact Thatcher and raise the possibility, after looking at their disparate edit histories, that Marx and CB are two people who share an IP address. Let's see what he has to say in response. In the meantime, please try to restrain your venom. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Scjessey, you continue to get warning notices on your User Talk page, and not just from the five of us; you get warnings from multiple different editors."

What does that have to do with anything? My conduct is not in question here, and I have not been accused of sock or meat activity. I even publish my IP address on my user page. I've received few warnings and only a single block (plus one incorrectly applied block after wikigaming by User:CENSEI, another one to add to this rogues gallery). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to compare the editing behavior of these accounts to BryanfromPalatine: BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The modus operandi, the POV being pushed, the disingenuous and laughable claims of being a left-winger from several of the socks, the mannerisms, the specific misspellings, the same physical location... Boy, if this isn't all the same puppetmaster, it's his twin. --GoodDamon 18:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. This is why I hate my involuntary tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It's amazing how similiar their "I'm a liberal", "I have left-wing agenda" while pushing right-wing POV is. I support blocks all around. Digital 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, 'Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?' " Well said. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the argument chiming out of all the sock accounts - the accusation that all the ANI incidents, blocks, edit warring, etc., is a plot by a cabal of editors to set them up for false accusations. Meanwhile completely misrepresenting the current incident as a content dispute between two POV camps. There is a single complaining editor and a number of other editors and admins who have weighed in. Of course the people here have tangled with this puppetmaster before - he's railed against a few dozen legitimate long-time editors on a wide range of articles, and he's sucked several of those editors into this latest report. It's him against Misplaced Pages, not him against a cabal.Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would say "hey guys, any chance that the IP's are so similar because they all edit through a corporate firewall", but I don't believe that is the case. I say this because in a company that requires/affords that type of firewall, you would be hard-pressed to find a few random editors who all have a penchant for editing the same articles with the same style of writing - unless, of course, they were all editing articles about their company (which would then be COI). -t BMW c- 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just caught that 300Wacker and the "supervisor" he admiringly quotes, with whom he shares similar writing styles ("By the way"), similar takes on the Misplaced Pages cabal, and a shared tendency to edit war over sockpuppetry notices, are both editing from the same Robert Bosch GmbH subsidiary IP address, above, used by prolific sockpuppeter BryanfromPalentine. I wish I had a "supervisor" who would show up to defend me on AN/I, even a boss who had any idea about Misplaced Pages. Personally, if I worked for a public company and I found that my employees were using company resources to play politics in an election, and were accused of pranking Misplaced Pages to do it, I'd report them to HR and IT rather than joining in the act myself.Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Christ on a bicycle. It's painfully obvious that this is, if not bluntly sockpuppetry, then an organized collection of people editing to the same goals on the same pages. Block the bloody lot of them and be done with it. If we, for some odd reason, can't reach a consensus on that (and considering how often we've been sucked in by this particular little Illinois crowd of POV-pushers), then I suggest the issues be cooled down by issuing a topic ban on any politics-related articles. First choice is the block button, though - otherwise, this is going to keep coming back over and over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • These socks are trying to send a subliminal message - that they are operating the same way ACORN was claimed to be operating. However, ACORN has dropped off the radar on the Limbaugh page, so it's basically a dead issue now. Baseball Bugs 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• This sock puppetry is a disgrace and has no place in WP. Those puppets should be ashamed of their behavior and banned for good. They even should have their American citizenship removed (although that is not possible) since they're used it in such disgracefully way that I'm pretty much ashamed of this behavior of my fellow citizens. I'm full of anger and done with it for now before I lose myself and really start posting inappropriate comments/opinions and I'll better don't watch this page for a while unless I cool down. Having a few bad day's anyway lately so this here it is the least I need right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One inappropriate comment (I just can't resist): Dump them in the next available landfill! Ok, now I shut up.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, do you drink much on your bad days Magnificent? :-D Digital 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what you consider to be "much", yes, sometimes (like yesterday), but you could ask me such embarrassing things on my talk page instead of here. D'ow.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go with not doing that. I want abusive Misplaced Pages accounts banned. Nothing more. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think murder or revocation of citizenship are options, but I'm wondering if Bosch's IT department should be told its IP is being used abusively? Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply "murder" in my last "over the top" comment. I really want to make that clear since I would NEVER EVER would imply such thing. Sorry if it was misunderstood.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good remedy. There is absolutely no reason to punish the entire company because of the behavior of one bad apple. They should definitely be made aware of the abuse. I'm sure they have policies in place to deal with such situations. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Write something up regarding this and I'll send it to the Swiss (and German) main office. Their tolerance for such misuse of company time and equipment is way lower than at the American branch, so there is a chance to be heard and consequences be applied.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy guys. Lets just take it one step at a time an block them first. We can always do more at the approperiate time, if such a time comes. Digital 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What a shocker - the cabal o' Obama have completed another witchhunt. I'd like to see the same loose standards of sockpuppetry "confirmation" applied to GoodDamon, Wikidemon, Scjessey and the rest of them. In fact, I'd like someone to run their IP addresses through that wiki utility that checks to see if they are working for a government agency or campaign. Seriously, this "confirmation" is just crap. I was accused of sockpuppetry once because I used the same ISP as some dude - an ISP that covers something like 5 states. What was the test for witches again? If they sink they are innocent and if they float they are witches? TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

TGLocust, you've just come off your third block in a month. Is this really the kind of accusatory first edit you want to make on your return? Dayewalker (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What to do about this one? This is the account's first edit after a 2-week block for, well, you have to see the history. Wikidemon (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey I call it like I see it. When I first made an account I was almost immedietly accused of sockpuppetry. You and your friends provoke people and then go and get them banned since they aren't as profiecient at working the rules - and in this case you are banning people for being from the Chicago (and at least one looks likes he may be using a mobile card from Sprint). A few people may be socks, but it looks to me like 3 of them aren't. Heaven forbid people in the tiny town of Chicago take an interest in a Chicago politician and his background. Why don't you just ban everyone with a Chicago IP? Well...if they are conservative that is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to you exactly once on this. The "cabal" as you describe it is made up of editors with diverse editing histories. None of us -- I'm assuming you include me in your theoretical cabal -- are single-purpose accounts. The accounts of the puppetmaster you defend, however, are. Oh sure, he got smarter somewhere along the lines and started, as Bali puts it, pushing commas around on a few random pages with several of his socks to establish them as supposed editors in good standing, but they each evinced the same behavior, they each used the same editing styles, and they were each eventually traced to a puppetmaster with an extensive history of precisely this kind of activity. And as for you? You're also a single-purpose account. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but when a flock of SPAs continuously descend upon an article or series of articles with the intent to push the same POV, other editors can be excused for wondering if perhaps they're all the same guy, perhaps a sock army by a guy with a conflict of interest and an point to make. So get over it. --GoodDamon 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

I have just indefinitely blocked User:Marx0728 and User:Curious bystander as abusive sockpuppet accounts (I don't really care who's the master and who's the puppet). I'm about to block 300wackerdrive, WorkerBee74, and Kossack4Truth as sockpuppets of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. Please note that in addition to the well-documented escapades of B4T, there's good reason to suspect that the same person was involved in a festival of POV-pushing at the Waterboarding article (see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding).

I don't think this action should be controversial (except in the eyes of the blocked users) but I welcome review and discussion of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support the actions of brave akhilleus in ending the hectoring of this ilian army. You may strip them of their socks and vaunt.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hektoring... I like that. Nice. MastCell  19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I approve both Akhilleus' action and Bali ultimate's literate comment. However, I hope that we can avoid dragging the corpse of this edit warrior around the city. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock it to 'em. Baseball Bugs 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be useful:

In this case the block could certainly have waited. On the other hand, I don't think that a blanket admonition to rely on checkuser is the best advice. Checkuser is a confirmatory tool, and it's prone to false negatives as well as false positives. Case in point: I was absolutely sure that this guy was a sock of a specific banned user. However, the checkuser request I filed came back unrelated. Being a new and naive admin at the time, I trusted the checkuser result over my intuition. Finally, though, I couldn't ignore it: this was obviously a sock. So I took the plunge, blocked the account despite the unrelated checkuser, and posted it to AN/I, fully expecting to be shat upon given the prevailing attitudes on this noticeboard. Fortunately for me, Dmcdevit repeated the checkuser at AN/I and confirmed my suspicion. The take-home message is that checkuser is one tool for identifying abusive accounts, albeit a useful one. Administrative intuition or judgement is often as useful, and sometimes more useful. I agree with Jehochman that the checkuser was essential for rounding up the other socks, but my point is that checkuser is a complement to, not a substitute for, sound administrative judgement. MastCell  17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

300wackerdrive (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a well-chosen quote. :) For the record: I think it's long past time to clean up this mess and block all of these tendentious agenda accounts. Whether they are actual socks or merely indistinguishable for-all-intents-and-purposes socks is a bit academic. They've all made it amply clear that their political agenda takes precedence over the encyclopedia and our basic behavioral and content policies. It's really too bad that we lost Noroton (talk · contribs) - who was opinionated but generally respectful of the project's goals - while this group of obviously abusive accounts remains active. Good blocks, and I advocate tying up the loose ends. I feel bad personally for not taking care of it myself sooner. MastCell  19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Block. If the editor feels compelled to provide us very real evidence they are not a sock, then that would be a very good reason to actually use the "unblock" feature. Hmmmm, some reason I foresee 5 different fully protected user pages in the very near future ;-D Digital 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Methinks perhaps at this point he is hinting that he knows the "joke" is over. If that is the case, then I doubly support Wikidemon's suggestion that we inform his place of employment of the long-term abuse coming from their IP address. They can no doubt track down the individual user on their corporate network responsible for most of their Misplaced Pages traffic, and prevent further disruption. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --GoodDamon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Akhilleus. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness this nightmare is over! Good work all around. Grsz 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support re-review and not an indefinite block I have not reviewed the edits and I also voted for Obama. But there are complaints of which I've seen evidence for at least one, that Obama supporters are banning anyone that does not support Obama in Misplaced Pages. This is bad because this is Misplaced Pages, not Obamawikipedia.org. I did see that this discussion is about ACORN. ACORN is a valid point to include in the Barack Obama article because it was a significant part of the election. What the banned people want to write, it is not shown here.

I also disclose that I am not anywhere near Illinois.

The spirit of Obama is fairness, not being a dictator stamping out all opposition. As long as discussion is civil, that is the American way and also the Misplaced Pages way. ImNotObama (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is left watching this -- it is quite likely, based on past patterns, that ImNotObama is a new sock of bfp/wb74/k4t etc. etc. This three day-old users first action on a user talk page was to appeal on k4ts behalf (and like K4t claims to be a big obama supporter) while providing a misleading interpretation of digital ninja's position (basically he says ninja wants only a 7 day ban). While I know blocks are not typically issued preemptively, I feel a close eye should be kept on the back forty of this serial abusers next sock farm and this is probably a good place to start.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only have I already blocked him for exactly those reasons, but within <5 seconds he has filed an unblock request citing his IP geolocation. MastCell  23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was expecting some extra socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of this guy's current sock-farm, but that was fast! --GoodDamon 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The faster they come in, the faster they go out. Baseball Bugs 00:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh... And I just realized how funny it is for him to ask for leniency for accounts proven to be his sockpuppets. Kind of more-or-less automatically results in the new sock getting blocked, too. There are many cases where asking for reviews of indef-blocks is perfectly reasonable. Long-term abusive sockpuppetry ain't one of 'em. --GoodDamon 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Might I suggest locking this user's talk page and those of the other socks? Otherwise, I'm guessing that there will be all sorts of time-wasting requests for unblock shortly. --GoodDamon 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• In view of the above, I support the block of all these socks, but I suggest that talk pages be protected only after abuse of the unblock process has actually taken place.  Sandstein  05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Still disrupting

Can somebody block 78.34.129.217 (talk · contribs) as well. I also want this edit removed from my history immediately. Grsz 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, especially in light of this and other comments. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on style, I wouldn't assume it's BfP, but it's definitely a sockpuppeting troll, and definitely needs a block. This IP claims to be Everyme. Is it? Because if yes, then maybe it is BfP after all. --GoodDamon 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is User:ImNotObama blocked?

I notice this user has been blocked, but it is not clear from their talk page why this is. Their edits seem reasonable, and no-one appears to have referenced the edits that were the cause for their indef block. It's been asserted that they are a sockpuppet, but I can see no evidence that a checkuser has been run to confirm or refute this. Please could someone double-check to see if the proper procedures have been followed? Many thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins: This user rebroad has an extensive history of blocks for socking and ban evasion. He has archived most of his talk page stuff, but this is not a bad place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rebroad/Archive_2007 I find it interesting he's popped up here, and so interested in the fate of three day old user imnotobama, with whom he has never co-edited or corresponded with before. I strongly suspect this is yet another of BfP's socks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebroad's most recent edits are to complain above about the ImNotObama block and to reinstate material on User talk:Noroton . Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure of the motive here. It doesn't appear that Rebroad has been involved in prior discussions regarding this case or the prior cases. seicer | talk | contribs 03:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't appear to be much overlap, but the restoring of the Noroton stuff is weird, and does represent many points of contact. Rebroad has been on wikipedia it appears for a very long time -- yet why did he immediately gravitate to this?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest all of you ban-happy people read about the Salem Witch Trials. So far the consensus, to the obvious glee shown by some editors, is the banning of anyone who comes to the defense of these "socketpuppets." This not only prevents any real defense being mounted (which is also trying to be prevented by locked the talk pages), but it also prevents anyone else from coming to their defense or to express their own honest opinion out of fear that they too will be persecuted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

These are sockpuppets. He was found out. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not a matter of content disputes or POV, it is a matter of long-term abuse. That it was long-term abuse by a puppetmaster you happen to agree with politically doesn't make his behavior OK. --GoodDamon 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So who now? ImNotObama based on his prior conduct? Rebroad based on his talk page archive from 2007 and two edits today? TheGoodLocust and myself for now semi-supporting them? How far does this rabbithole go? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, do I agree with Locust. The entire series of articles have become a mess of ownership control games, with anyone outside subject to ridicule and blocks. This obsession with finding "socks" all days is just nonsense. Quit trying to figure out which new editor with two edits to articles that are in the news A LOT look or seem like socks. I hate to mention it but when we hit the point where an editor NOT making any mistakes gets blocked for being too suspicious, it's time to rethink the whole "indefinite block on sight" policy. Suggest we close this thread with archive tags and keep this speculative from going any further. Of course, then again, I could just be a 4-year-old underground sock waiting for this exact moment to be outed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please give it a rest. The articles saw massive disruption wasting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours of editing time. We just discovered the core of the most disruptive sock farm. If you're a legitimate editor, then a few seconds perusing TheGoodLocust's history should cue you in that he isn't someone you want to be encouraging. One thing you are right about, the thread is attracting trolls. Wikidemon (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, mark as resolved and leave separate discussions for another time? And I see what you mean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions

I'm reopening this discussion to bring up some questions and a few points I think are necessary for people to think about before this is archived. I received a few emails about the subject of this thread that are bringing me back from retirement at least to discuss this. Currently I'm recovering from an illness and it's a bit difficult to concentrate, so I'll try to keep it brief, but these points trouble me:

1. The blocks to Curious bystander and Marx seem to be based on definitive checkuser information. Those seem like good blocks.
2. The blocks on WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive are partly based on easily manipulated IP usage -- WB74 using a cell phone or similar device and 300wacker using a workplace IP address used by an already-identified sockmaster. It seems to me that either user should be able to get a new account from home. Combined with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I'm OK with those.
3. The Kossack4Truth block bothers me a bit. Apparently that one was from home. There seems to be no evidence of socking other than K4T living in Chicago. If the block is about socking, that's insufficient. I suppose WP:DUCK behavior could be sufficient for a block, but I'd like to see that spelled out in detail, which is only fair. If the block is about behavior, then that should be justified with specific diffs, not general statements that K4T is behaving badly. There have been some statements about bad behavior in this thread, but they are made by other editors involved in disputes with K4T, and for that reason those statements are inherently unreliable. And I see very few diffs of bad behavior.
4. What bothers me most about the description of K4T's behavior is that many of the same statements could be made about other editors who happen to have been on the side of the complainants here. (I readily admit that the K4T group that's been blocked advocated roughly the same positions that I would have if I'd been participating at the ACORN talk page or on Talk:Barack Obama. Also, I received two blocks myself about a month ago after a dispute with Wikidemon, so in that sense, consider me "involved".) Besides socking, K4T is accused of rough treatment of others' comments on the talk page, moving them around and, I think, closing discussions -- just what Wikidemon was doing on the Talk:Barack Obama page. Incivility is another charge, and there's been a load of that on both sides on both the Obama and ACORN talk pages. I'll try to provide some diffs. If K4T is going to be indef blocked for combining this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIV behavior with alleged -- and unconfirmed -- sockpuppeting, then some kind of sanction should be applied to editors who are perpetrating much of the same behavior.
5. I get the sense that the admins doing the blocking are largely relying on vague recollections of past complaints and current, vague statements from involved editors without looking closely -- independently -- at the record on the talk pages. It would be good form for not only the complainants to cite specific diffs but for the blocking admins to do so. Providing specific diffs and specific reasons would be good form because (a) that helps avoid mistakes that lead to unfairness; (b) that helps someone unfairly blocked to mount a defense; (c) it offers proof to everybody else (like me, for instance) that some care and attention has gone into the decision to block -- it's important that Misplaced Pages not only try to be fair but that it be seen to be fair. Apperances matter, and this looks bad. Other editors further up on this thread have already complained. Even if every editor mentioned as a sock of this BrianFromPalatine is actually him, you'd want even the sockmaster to feel he'd been treated fairly -- I think that tends to reduce future bad behavior.
   • Regarding the be seen to be fair, I could not agree more. This is precisely the original point I was trying to make. indef blocks are an exceptional thing, and therefore require exceptional reasons and evidence. --Rebroad (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
6. The block of ImNotObama seems to have been done simply because that user came to the defense of a blocked user. That really doesn't pass the smell test. That should be reviewed by other admins. Also, the person who created ImNotObama should be able to start another account from the same computer; would someone please tell me if that's possible?
   • Apparently not. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/ImNotObama. --Rebroad (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Bali ultimate has stated that User:Readbroad has an "extensive" socking record. That's not true. I see a single block for it, from more than a year ago. That statement should be redacted. It's this kind of inaccurate accusation that raises doubts about the blocks. GoodDamon's idea to block talk pages of the blocked users is also troubling.
   • I was blocked about a year ago on suspicion on sockpuppeting, which was later found to be untrue. Bali's personal attacks and premature archiving of talk pages are now getting to the point that I am considering proposing a community ban unless he starts behaving. --Rebroad (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think these are reasonable concerns that jusify keeping this thread opened longer. It seems to me that a strong case can be made even for K4T's block, but the case should be made. I don't have the strength right now for a long discussion, but I'll try to find those diffs I promised, or I'll redact the statement above. Please keep this thread open so these concerns can be addressed. I realize everyone's a volunteer here, but indefinite blocks deserve more attention to detail than we have here. And I'm not questioning any admin's good faith by raising these concerns. -- Noroton (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a case of WP:DUCK. In Kossack4Truth's case, a lot of his behavior was identical to that of old BryanFromPalatine socks, specifically claiming to be a left-winger while endlessly pushing a very non-neutral right-wing POV in the name of "truth." It's a slog, but go through some of BFP's old socks, and you'll find K4T was either another sock, or a twin brother. Then there was timing... 300wackerdrive edits during the day, from BryanFromPalatine's work IP address, and then Kossack4Truth edits in the evening. Never the two did meet, near as I can tell. As for making a sockmaster feel he's been treated fairly.... ehh, no. I just want his accounts blocked so he can't disrupt pages anymore. BryanFromPalatine is a banned user, as in permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. His socks are a block-on-sight kind of thing. As for ImNotObama, that account, which had never been here before, appeared all of a sudden to protest the blocking of the other socks, in the middle of some weird -- and frankly BFP-ish -- edits he was beginning on the Obama page. Again, looks like, "I'm really a liberal, guys! Only I think we should pick apart how his positions between the campaign and now have completely changed and he's going back on everything he ever stood for blah blah blah..." Same crap BFP socks always do. Now, I don't know if a quick checkuser on him verified that he was using the IP address of one of the other socks, but sure looks like a duck to me. --GoodDamon 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, there are enough people on wikipedia that you'll often find some users' behaviours are similar to those of others. Hardly a reason for blocking! --Rebroad (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon further reading of the duck test, I now realise you are actually mis-applying the duck test. If you look at the original wp:duck page you'll see it's all about not avoiding "using labels" to describe things. It's NOT about "hypothesising" that something is the same thing just because shares characteristics. Anyway, WP:DUCK is just an essay, not a policy, so is not really relevant when discussing policies. --Rebroad (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an old version of WP:DUCK has to do with this, but I'm not seeing anything in that that disagrees with me. All I'm saying is it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it sure is quacking. --GoodDamon 07:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Bali, I think he was wrong. But it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with from this puppeteer. --GoodDamon 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

One other thing... In reviewing cases of other determined puppeteers, it looks like it's extremely common for a few more socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of other socks when a group of them get discovered and summarily dealt with. --GoodDamon 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if your definition of a sockpuppet is any user who agrees with another user. --Rebroad (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, my definition of a sockpuppet is any user who is another user. Look... ImNotObama showed up at the above incident report, having not been involved in any way, within minutes of the other sockpuppets being blocked. In that edit, he simultaneously announced 1) That he had voted for Obama (as if that had anything to do with this whatsoever) 2) That his IP address wasn't in Chicago (as if that makes any difference when dealing with a puppeteer who is known to be familiar with checkuser and how to avoid it) and 3) That he supported undoing the decision of the admins without having reviewed the edits of any of the accounts. This after having already established a pattern of editing consistent with BryanFromPalatine's liberal-who-pushes-conservative-POV variety of sockpuppet. Sure looks like another duck to me. --GoodDamon 07:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page, GoodDamon wrote, under the heading, Why reopen?:

I thought I was effectively answering your questions. Look... I understand that you happen to agree with this particular puppeteer politically. But this isn't about politics, it's about long-term abuse of Misplaced Pages by a banned user. I understand your concerns about ImNotObama, but seriously, look at that user's edits and tell me if you think that's his first account? There's no need to rehash all this. It's done. Give it a rest. --GoodDamon 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, do you know whether or not ImNotObama (INO) is BryanFromPalatine or an acceptable alternate account of some other editor? No, you don't. Do you know if INO is a former editor just returning? No, you don't. Sure, if the new editor was both suspicious and behaving pretty badly, there's a good reason to block. I don't see that there was a need do block that editor, and the possible harm is obvious -- especially if the person is not permitted to create a new account.

You're right, the issues here are not political. The issue is whether one group of editors is being favored over another group of editors, and whether blocks are being made without adequate examination of evidence (I'm not questioning administrators' motives). If there is evidence, diffs can be provided. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your disinterestedness, but I'd rather rely on the diffs along with the word of the admins who acted. I don't think clear explanations are too much to ask.

I explained why I was removing the blue box and reopening the sections just above , but Bali ultimate removed my comment, which I left I believe that's a violation of WP:TALK. This is actually a good example of the kind of rough treatment of other user's comments that editors were complaining about with regard to Kossak4Truth. When this kind of thing is taking place, it's a good reason for administrators to independently look into something before blocking rather than trust a complaining editor's perceptions. There isn't evidence that administrators did that.

it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with The blocked editors could make a good case for saying the same thing. -- Noroton (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I was thinking the same thing. If allowance should be made, they should be made for both sides. It is hard work trying to see reason with someone with such a one-sided perspective. --Rebroad (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The blocked editor. Apparently, ImNotObama's behavior was suspicious enough -- he was obviously monitoring the AN/I, he responded so fast -- that administrators I have no reason to doubt whatsoever took one look at his already-established behavior and concluded that yes, indeed, this was a newly discovered sock, come to defend old socks as is typical behavior. So yes, I'd say I do know that User:ImNotObama is BryanFromPalatine, because the admins made that determination. By the way, ImNotObama's sixth edit was a junk report here of Wikidemon, this puppeteer's current favorite punching bag. I'd say that qualifies as both "suspicious and behaving pretty badly".

Now, as for the favoritism argument, I point out again... for what must be the thousandth time... that while one group of editors are not single-purpose, POV-pushing accounts, all the socks demonstrably are. That is why there is what you perceive as favoritism. Take a look at my contribution history: You'll find things from major rewrites to Scientology, to creating new articles for obscure Orthodox Jewish sects. You'll find an extensive history of vandalism-fighting, and if you look carefully you'll even figure out my true identity based on one particular article (which I try to avoid now, because I have a better understanding of WP:COI than I once did). Look at Wikidemon; the same. Look at Grsz11; the same. Look at the editors who aren't socks or SPAs; the same. That is why the admins "side" with one group over another. One group is helping the encyclopedia. The other appears to be a single banned user with an ax to grind. --GoodDamon 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being an SPA is good grounds for suspicion and scrutiny, but by itself it isn't grounds for blocking. Yes, it certainly looks like ImNotObama is/was an alternate account, but again, not reason in itself for blocking. I'm not saying SPAs shouldn't receive greater scrutiny and even have less leeway than regular editors. I'm saying that admins have relied so much on passively watching complaints come in to AN/I that constant complainers (Wikidemon, especially) have caused a certain warping, where Wikidemon's targets are treated more harshly than Wikidemon's allies, who he naturally doesn't complain about. Admins actively looking into the talk page and article histories would see actions by your allies that are in some ways similar to the accusations against the blocked editors. It's fundamentally unfair for one side to get blocked and for the other to get off scott free. Time for me to find some diffs to prove this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on then Noroton, let's see those diffs! --Rebroad (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page for ACORN, I see WorkerBee74 and 300Wackerdrive significantly less civil than Wikidemon, GoodDamon, Bali ultimate and others, and I see the first two escalating conflict. The last three did comment on editors when they should have stuck with commenting on edits, including quite a few comments accusing the first two of sockpuppeting, but the escalating and incivility were clearly perpetrated mostly by the first two, and it went on for some time. So as far as that page goes, at least, I have to take it back, and I've crossed out my initial comments just above about incivility. I haven't reviewed Talk:Barack Obama history over the past few months. -- Noroton (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you went to the trouble to review that page history. If you are satisfied with the results of this report at this point, we should allow it to archive. --GoodDamon 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we please close this part too? Accounts of the sock/meatpuppet farm are all blocked. I doubt anyone is going to go along with unblocking them, but if anyone wants to champion them, they ought do so without repeating their attacks on the legitimate editors here. Noroton has an obsession with me as his favorite punching bag as well. Before the block: " drag that editor through every single dispute resolution forum that has any hope", "You have a lot to fear...You really shouldn't have provoked me into revealing your edit history to other editors. As far as you're concerned, it won't matter whether I'm unblocked an hour from now or a week from now", "I'm angry now and I'll be angry a week and a month and a year from now if I don't get the sense that admins or arbitrators are listening" After the block: This fixation on me is vexatious, disruptive, and as I said before it's attracting trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

 Note: This board is not a chatroom. Is any further administrative action requested here? Any editor who just wants to talk and get clarifications, please approach the administrators who have taken any actions, and ask them for clarification. Any editor is remains dissatisfied after such discussion may make used of dispute resolution. Everyone should take note that this page is not part of formal dispute resolution. Thank you. Jehochman 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This thread was not started in order to chat. The blocks and rejected unblock requests involved at least three administrators: Akhilleus (blocked WorkerBee74, Kossack4Truth, 300wackerdrive, Curiousbystander and Marx0724), seicer (rejected ImNotObama's unblock request) and MastCell (blocked ImNotObama, templated Curiousbystander's user page, rejected unblock request by Kossack4Truth). When blocks were made, the discussion thread above this one was pointed to as justification. Is any further administrative action requested here? Yes: (1) review of the blocks by other admins; (2) I've asked all the admins to comment here in this central spot, to give specific reasons for their blocks of Kossak4Truth and ImNotObama. (3) As yet, there is no cogent explanation for K4T's and ImNotObama's indefinite blocks. That should always be provided. Note that Arkhilleus wrote above: I welcome review and discussion of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 I've brought up specific, serious questions that seem worth answering. Administrators should have a full opportunity to address them. (Incidentally, although Curiousbystander's user page was given a sock-account template , I see nothing on that user's talk page from Arkhilleus informing the user of the block or how to make an unblock request. The block was made. ) -- Noroton (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)made small correction -- Noroton (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll speak to my part, in response to Noroton's request. Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs) has been a long-term problem account. In retrospect, some of the behavioral ties to the BryanFromPalatine sockfarm are fairly clear, but it was off my radar as it had been awhile since the relevant ArbCom cases. Specifically, the agenda, the claims of being a member of DailyKos combined with relentlessly over-the-top partisan editing from the opposite perspective, combined with the checkuser information (which is complementary but not conclusive by itself) argue strongly, to me, that this account is either an out-and-out sock of the others, or at least behaviorally indistinguishable and a "functional" sockpuppet (c.f. here). Even putting all of this aside, K4T was an example of the worst sort of partisan editing and game-playing that afflicts this site, and was in the process of abusing his 11th or 12th chance when the sockpuppetry issue came to light.

Now to my specific actions: I declined this unblock request on K4T's talk page. There were a couple of issues here: first, the {{unblock}} request was placed by ImNotObama (talk · contribs), rather than K4T. That's quite odd; add the classic "I'm an Obama supporter" disclaimer and the account history of ImNotObama (see next paragraph), and the fact that the unblock request did not address the merits of the block per se but argued for a reduced block length on vague grounds, and I felt that this request was properly rejected.

Now to ImNotObama (talk · contribs), whom I indefinitely blocked as a sock. This account was about 3 days old, pursued the usual K4T/BFP talking points, and their 4th or 5th edit was a reasonably sophisticated un-archiving of an AN/I thread, followed shortly by posting the {{unblock}} request for K4T. In addition, there's the immediate "go ahead and checkuser me" response to the block. All of this suggests that this is not a new user. I think anyone with experience dealing with sockpuppetry who looks at this contrib history is likely to reach the same conclusion. Whether this is an out-and-out sock, a meatpuppet, or a proxy for K4T et al is perhaps largely academic; this is functionally, pretty clearly, an account directly related to the other abusive socks, and properly indef-blocked in my opinion.

Outside opinions and review are welcome; I'm happy to elaborate if anyone feels it would be useful. MastCell  17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell. Although I still think it would be better to present diffs comparing K4T with BryanfromPalatine (and diffs of misbehavior), I trust your judgment. Are there any ways the two are similar that haven't been mentioned previously? I agree that K4T was an example of the worst sort of partisan editing and game-playing that afflicts this site, but I'll note that there are other examples of editors who fit that bill, and when it's combined with violations of behavioral policies in the future, I hope it will be given similar weight.

ImNotObama certainly appeared to be an account of someone already familiar with Misplaced Pages (but that could have been nearly any other editor). Misplaced Pages allows alternate accounts if the accounts follow policy. The account didn't make a single abusive edit. this is functionally, pretty clearly, an account directly related to the other abusive socks Because the editor came to their defense? I've come to K4T's "defense" here and so has Rebroad, so it's not anything more than suspicious that a new account would do that. Editing the Obama talk page is also no big deal, and there wasn't enough of it to establish a connection. pursued the usual K4T/BFP talking points I haven't seen evidence of that; could you elaborate? Absent checkuser evidence, clear WP:DUCK evidence or misbehavior, I think you or a consensus of other admins should unblock. -- Noroton (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of socks in project-related discussions (such as policy debates and AN/I threads) is generally considered inappropriate (see, for example, this ArbCom finding). Certainly, a sock used primarily to agitate on AN/I and elsewhere for a specific unblock, and secondarily to support the blocked account's agenda, seems abusive. MastCell  20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a consensus to unblock. I would have declined the unblock request and I endorse Mastcell's actions here. As far as "checkuser evidence", the jury will always be out on that. Barring some obvious screwup/naivete on the part of the sockmaster, checkuser will usually just present limited technical evidence for a proposition, not something conclusive. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think unblocks are warranted in these cases. It is easy enough to block later. It is also easy to say "block" when one doesn't agree with content of an article. It is also equally easy to say "unblock" when you do. Absent real evidence of sockpuppetry, blocks appear capricious and arbitrary.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe there is "real" evidence of sockpuppetry here, and that these blocks prevent further disruption of the encyclopedia (which is, after all, the rationale behind any block). MastCell  20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well just let me thank you for your public declaration that you did not believe that I was a sock puppet after the spurious accusation had been made else where. That is the spirit of assume good faith.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Kossack4Truth and the guy using the mobile/cell should definitely be unblocked. My aunt uses a cell connection for her internet access almost exclusively due to where she lives. I imagine it is pretty common for a lot of rural people. As for the others, I looked a bit at the BryanfromPalantine "sock farm" and the original accusations (which seem a bit spurious at first glance), and it looks to me like it has just become a "boogyman" - where the accusation of being "BryanfromPalatine" is enough to permanently stain anyone. In other words - it is a quick and easy way to get someone you don't like permanently banned with minimal scrutiny. The only ones that should stay banned are the two which are confirmed socks by CheckUser.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This section is so long. Is there anyway you guys can just talk and try to get along with each other? UN111 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User: Srkris - Civility and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. ] (] · ]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. ] (] · ]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. ] (] · ]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. ] (] · ]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks ] (] · ]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? ] (] · ]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? ] (] · ]) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Misplaced Pages has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Misplaced Pages by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Misplaced Pages has been completely within the framework of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Misplaced Pages, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Misplaced Pages. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. ] (] · ]) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh (Gentleman Account) and User:Googlean (Enforcer account)

For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Misplaced Pages terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Misplaced Pages. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Misplaced Pages terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Violation only if the good hand is an admin/admin candidate or the bad hand is specifically demonstrated as disruptive or editing for the purpose of stirring up controversy or participating in internal policy-political discussions. Merely having two accounts for more and less controversial areas, as this appears to be according to User:Vivin, isn't a violation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I never knew Wiki rules permitted accounts used solely for edit-warring. Please do point me to any existing policy that allows this. Btw, theblock log of Googlean indicates the account is stirring up controversy and his edit log indicates he is fighting political battles.Pectore 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP case filed. --vi5in 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean has been blocked before for edit warring. It is interesting to see that the bad account hasn't been indef blocked yet. Vivin is correct here.Pectore 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So one account is used to edit war, while the other isn't? Yes, this is a violation of WP:SOCK. Khoikhoi 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked, googlean indefinitely and Avinesh for one week based on linked confirmation above, and disruptive edit warring, attempting to deceive and obfuscate disruptive editing, and generally trying to be too cute by half about explaining it away. Additional confirmation would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

User:Vivin had earlier issues with User:Avinesh , bcoz of the latter's objection of POV pushing for the former's caste. This was indeed objected by many users like this , this and many other examples. Vivin himself was alledgely using socks ( See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet and User_talk:Vivin#Your_sock_puppet_case Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#User:Avinesh ) . With Avinesh leading "his accusers" , it was important for Vivin to get the 'head of Avinesh' to roll down. Avinesh was earlier involved with taking many caste based articles to AFDs. Even I have crossed horns with Avinesh very long back ( Both of us have 'complained' each other at the ANI). User:Avinesh is a good contributor , his contribs can be viewed from the user page.

In his new form as User:Googlean , he was 'fighting ' aganist the Pro-Hindutva and Anti-Christian cabal lead by ,
Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Pectore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Tripping_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) etc .,
While I dont really agree to the justification of Avinesh's use of mutiple ids to work on controversal subjects, I guess his explaination was the policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area . I interacted with User:Googlean on wiki noticing his NPOV fighting . I didnt know Googlean was actually Avinesh , whom I earlier had issues with , until when Vivin tagged him as a sock of Avinesh and Harjk.It may be interesting to know how Vivian identified Avinesh as Googlean without even a check user!

Googlean was associated with the following articles which was subjected to heavy POV vandalism by an anti-Christian cabal .

• Anti-Christian violence in India
• Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka
• Religious violence in Orissa
• September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore

See also Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jobxavier,
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ,
Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Pectore
and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer. These pages is still trolled daily by scores of IP socks of Jobxavier. User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a permanently banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Googlean was intially blocked by User:YellowMonkey , who unblocked Jobxavier , when Jobxavier was blocked by another admin. YellowMonkey is a trusted admin , whom I have a gr8 respect and on wiki friendship , but this action didnt seemed acceptable from him and I have already conveyed this to him. Googlean and many other users wanted to add Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Vishva Hindu Parishad are declared militant parties. See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Bajrang_Dal.2C_Shiv_Sena.2C_VHP_-_militant_parties.3F . While Googlean strongly decided to keep adding the parties as militant / extremist , YM blocked him on a apparently pseudo consensus. Googlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by YM for "persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB." I guess here he was reverting a reliable source (?) part which was removed by a possibly a SPA editor named Blondlottswires ( contribs ) See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin .

The next time Googlean was blocked when an admin User:Wknight94 misinterpreted the CU results by User:Nishkid64. Nishkid unblocked Googlean and Both Nish and Wknight apologised to Googlean ( see User_talk:Googlean#re:.

Bharatveer has a very long disruptive and POV pushing history on Hindutava and Anti-Christian articles. He just came out of an year long editing restriction after this Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer. He was blocked several times during this period and ALSO last week. He is currently under Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case and is close to another editing restriction or a permanent ban. With Pectore the only person defending Bharatveer, it was important for him to get Googlean 'chained' and his accusitions here was in a very bad distaste and bad faith.

Now this being the behind the curtains story , tell me who is disruptive and socker. Avinesh may have used another legitimate account to keep off from the controversal subjects to protect his privacy and defend his personal and family security. You may not never know, he may be even otherwise be attacked in real world if his real identity was to be revealed as Avinesh . The question is whether he wanted to risk that in India , where there are lots of religious attacks recently ? The last time I warned an IP sock of Jobxavier, this was what I was threatened " The home ministry has your details ( and they will get you  ? ) ". What is next ? " Tinucherian, you are threatened to be burned or murdered? " The question is whether I should risk my personal and family security or should I also use a pseudo username to keep WP as NPOV as possible and also protect my life and security ? This being the case , I request the admins to reconsider the indefinite block of Avinesh and Googlean ! -- Tinu Cherian - 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely and totally uninterested in accusations about evil cabals and the related defense that poor behavior is justified by fighting a cabal. No excuses. Try again.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See facts and evidences before taking a prejudiced view . Also it is important to identify and to Call a spade a spade ! Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way, I am under no circumstances going to unblock someone based on the rational "they were fighting a cabal." This is non negotiable, so if you want my help, you're going to have to do better, or you can find another admin.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the real issue here? Think of the bigger picture ! See the contribs of others and Googlean/Avinesh , Was he disruptive or edit warring ? Was he keeping WP reliable and NPOV from huge number of disruptive socks and meat puppets? Was he potentially protecting his privacy and personal/ family security to uphold the best interests of Misplaced Pages by using a pseudo/ legitimate sock ? Did Avinesh and Googlean kept editing the same page as two different users ? With vivian's confession , Avinesh had declared he was indeed Googlean when needed. Did he kept denying his identity as Googlean ? . Concuring -Relata refero's statement above, kindly read WP:GHBH , was he operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy ? Was he operating a "bad hand" account for the admin / admin candidate for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or "three-revert rule" issues on the same articles ? Look at the other side of the table ? Lots of disruptive sock on rampage ! Admins and lots of other users keep reverting the sock POVs daily ( check the page histories of the articles above) and had to protect the pages. In the light of the above evidences and facts, I request to unblock User:Avinesh in Good faith. Due to pressure of lots of traumatizing POV pushers like these, many good users ( like User:P.K.Niyogi User:Ragib ( see reasons ) etc) have left / is leaving WP, which is not good for Misplaced Pages ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just finished my cup of hot chocolate (mmm hot chocolate) or my keyboard and screen would be quite chocolaty now (mmm chocolaty...). Tinucherian, thank you for confirming what Avinesh has consistently denied: Harjk and Crazyguy2050 being his sockpuppets. If you'll look at Harjk's contributions and Crazyguy2050's contributions, you'll see that he consistently reverted the article without discussion claiming that he was reverting "POV fork terrorism"/"monkeysm" (I still have no idea what that means). What's interesting is that Avinesh never really edited the article in question. So I guess Tinucherian, you're confirming something that Avinesh has denied - that Harjk and Crazyguy2050 are his socks. So there's the first point. Avinesh has lied through and through - hardly the mark of a "good editor".

Now Tinu also brought up Relata reverting the changes. Relata did revert the changes, but he and I reached a very amicable consensus on the article. So Tinu's second point is completely moot as well.

The third point is me having sockpuppets. Avinesh (and his socks) seem to accuse people that they do no agree with, of being sockpuppets. In fact, I believe he launched (as Googlean) a frivolous case against Pectore. The SSP was completely inconclusive, which means that I don't have any sockpuppets. I never have. Contrast this with three confirmed sockpuppet cases against Avinesh. I'm not sure what you mean about Avinesh "leading his accusers". I've only had one accuser and that's Avinesh (in addition to one Khalistan-nut-troll). And really, I have no interest in seeing "the head of Avinesh roll". I've stated many times that I value his contributions. However, he's always had WP:OWN and WP:COI issues with people correcting or cleaning up his articles. I mean, take a look at this revert war that he got into regarding his incorrect English grammar, which I was trying to correct, or these other articles, where I was trying to do the same. In fact, he launched that SSP case against me without following proper procedure (didn't bother to inform me), and simply because I tagged his article saying that it needed cleanup (which I later did).

Regarding my tagging Avinesh as a sock, it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh". I've pointed this out many times in the WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:SSP cases against him. Perhaps Tinucherian should have been as diligent in reasearching that as he has been in his defence of Avinesh. About all of this drama about ZOMG I R GOING TO BE KILLED!!! Really, now. Avinesh's intent is very clear - to engage in disruptive editing and POV pushing (and this has been confirmed by his previous blocks) in a set of battleground articles. So please don't try to bring up stuff about people being afraid for their lives.

Anyways, that's all I have to say. --vi5in 07:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New pedophilia SPA, probable sock

• Glenn Stokowski (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

This new account has 34 edits so far - 24 are aggressive WP:SOAPBOX comments on Talk:Pedophilia and the other 10 appear to be distractions - minor spelling changes on various topics.

Whether the new account is a new user or a sock is unknown, though the writing style and content are similar to a couple banned users who edited the pedophilia-related topics.

• first edit (and later edits) - claims that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation"
• 3rd edit or 4th - threatens to make "major changes to the entire article"
• describes the mainstream DSM as a "cultural courioisty"
• repeatedly describes pedophilia as a cultural issue, not a scientific or medical issue, contrary to all mainstream references
• in multiple comments, states that pedophilia is analogous to homosexuality: , , - here are a couple gems:
  • "Once homosexuality was accepted as normal, then all arguments against pedophilia immediately become obsolete."
  • "Same goes for homosexuality or any other sexual variation."
  • "Most pedophiles also find women sexually attractive, so there is no necessary result in harm even in this society. Homosexuality is more problematic if we look at the facts, they have more psychological problems and physical disease than heterosexuals in general, so you're treading on very thin ice here."

That's the direction of this user's comments. Since they're all in that one talk-page section, it's easy to see them all by reviewing the section rather than through additional individual diffs. Several editors have pointed out on the talk page in detail the ways that the new account's comments are off-track, but he has continued to press his fringe agenda.

I request that administrators please review the pedophilia-focus and overly aggressive initial approach of this new account.

Thanks for checking it out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the edits and left a very gentle reminder concerning our policies. At present he has not stepped over the line. I and others will be watching. No opinion on whether he is a sock. JodyB _talk 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. I was not requesting any particular action, or a block. My intent with this incident report was for admins to be aware of this account, hopefully that's all that's needed. Based on the history of other accounts that started out this way though, it appears unlikely that this will not escalate, so please do keep this account on the radar. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia and related article - disruption has commenced

Disruptive editing by the above user has now commenced. After being warned by JodyB, and told by multiple editors on Talk:Pedophilia that his sources are fringe and his changes do not have consensus, the user moved large sections of the article to Child Sexual Abuse. He was reverted by myself once, and also by another editor who also left a level-2 warning on his talk page, to which he responded beligerantly. The tone and style of his response indicates that he is an experienced user.

Glenn Stokowski has also reverted two editors who undid his non-consensus changes, and marked his major removal of information as a "minor edit".

I'm not going to continue reverting the damage, because I will not edit-war.

This now requires administrative intervention, please help. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else reverted the changes prior to my getting there, but I've left another note regarding consensus and encouraged him to continue the discussion without making the edits prior to reaching agreement. If it continues, post here again; I'll monitor as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Glenn Stokowski for edit warring after he reverted to his preferred version once again, almost immediately after another administrator initiated discussion on his talk page. I hesitate to consider this resolved, however; more review may be needed. Risker (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block. He doesn't seem to get that "consensus" on a topic is not measured in how long you've been talking about it. That could prove problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of the above comments, it's not likely the situation is fully resolved. But aside from that - thank you, Tony and Risker and the other editors who helped with this tonight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I've extended it to indef for disruptive behaviour and pro-pedophile activism. I've also let ArbCom know about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

While I can agree with the first 24 hour block, I don't think it was necessary to immediately jump to indef. Reblocks are cheap, and helpful editors are hard to come by. If there's even a chance that a troublesome editor can be reformed, I think he should be given a second chance. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's little chance of reform for a pro-pedophile activist. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support block. Ryan is correct, this account is not an ordinary troublesome editor. Its disruptive agenda was clearly visible starting with its first edit. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also support this block. The things this user was saying were just...well... Let's just say I had to remind myself to stay professional while responding to him. Flyer22 (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: ] (] · ]), ] (] · ]) and ] (] · ]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Misplaced Pages policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional.

Having said that, the problem that looms over all others is the libellous smearing of editors as we're seeing yet again in this case. Along with the jeering at attempts to build collegiate relationships, one would really think admins knew better than to behave in this way. PR 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Misplaced Pages:Edit war and noting by reference Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid legalistic terms like libellous - it is not good enough to label other editors as antisemitic (or as Holocaust Deniers in one case) and then try and laugh it off. Particularly not when the great majority of those cases are totally without foundation. There is a problem on these pages, but it's not antisemitism (that I've noticed, anyway) - it's racism. I've just drawn everyone's attention to it in as non-accusatory a fashion as possible, leaving it to the discretion of admins what to do with an editor who refers to "crack-head Arabs" (along with unpleasantness aimed at the French and dozens of ethno-specific snide comments).

Editors might be amused to check that well known reference, the Misplaced Pages, where they will find: "Jcom Radio was forced to cease broadcasting on Aug 12, 2008 when it lost a High Court libel case brought by George Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. The case concerned a broadcast in Nov 2007, in which a character playing "Georgie Galloway", the station's "Middle East correspondent" cried out "Kill the Jews, Kill the Jews". Despite sacking the presenter, issuing an apology and offering Mr Galloway the opportunity to appear on the station, Mr Galloway was awarded £15,000 and c. £5,000 in costs. He said that the station's apology "fell short of the categorical retraction of the imputation of anti-Semitism that I insisted upon"." PR 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anybody with anything. But I thought y'all might be amused to know that times move on and that, in at least some jurisdictions, accusations of antisemitism have apparently become actionable. Even an apology may not be good enough, as in the example I've drawn your attention to. There are of course, simple means to avoid putting yourself in jeopardy. PR 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The age old 'I'm not going to beat you up but you might have an accident' routine, PR? Please, pull the other, it has bells on. Can an admin deal with this as they deem appropiate? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening...But" Please pull the other one, legal threats are out of order. Justin talk 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

• Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
• Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.

• See these contribs lists: and and and
• See these diffs: and this edit summary and

This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion? I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB _talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne () 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne () 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— Dædαlus /_Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, . He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where all this starts. But , , seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the first one to admit - freely - that I am sometimes less tactful than I could be. I also agree that I should never have noted my educational background in a discussion (the only real instance of that ended several months ago, without recurrence), and I was properly chastised for doing so by others.

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. I have not stalked that person's edits, nor have I done so for eight months. The anon has.

The anon claims that some of the IPs are not his/hers; that might possibly be true. Using fairly ham-fisted IP-matching techniques, it would appear that about 3/4's of the IPs are centered around the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes part of Indiana, for purposes of this discussion); the rest are uniformly from New York. There might be a pattern there to be found - the user might take monthly trips to NY for work or whatever - but I think that it serves everyone's interest to not tar an innocent user editing from 75. with the same brush. Avi mentioned in the related RfCU that 75. counts for about 1% of the internet (about 67.1 million IPs), and the wiki benefits from the input of them. We cannot block them out because one particular user is being a jerk. And don't think I am not creeped out (and a little frightened) by the fact that the anon would appear to be in my own backyard.

Proposal One doesn't block the IP range; it just bans the user from editing here from whatever account or IP they choose to edit from. While this means that anyone being crafty with the same IP domain is going to get probed for duckhood, I think we already tend to do this passively and unofficially with most folk who act similar to banned or blocked users.

By banning the user, we remove ourselves from Proposal Two's added duty (and me the additional nuisance) of reporting behavior which would likely reoccur (case in point: the anon has been blocked three different times for this behavior, and each of nine different AN/I's have all commented about how the user had acted inappropriately - to date, that behavior has only abated by blocking the anon)

It has also been argued by the anon that they have edited anonymously for seven years. While that is a statement we cannot really prove - again, no single IP means edit histories are difficult to track, what is more telling is the stated reason the anon prefers to edit via dynamic IP and the actual effects. The anon has stated in April that they prefer to edit as a "public user", and more recently that they wish to avoid the "social networking aspects" of Wiki, and simply concentrate on articles. Quite lofty; if only it were true. Out of all the IPs connected to the account (and again the RfCU only addresses those IPs that intersected with my edits), less that a tenth actually add content to an article (and uncited content, in point of fact). The remainder of all of these contributions consist of reverting me, attacking me in article discussion or filing various administrative actions, all against me. All of that seems to pointedly fly in the face of someone trying to avoid the non-encyclopedia-building aspects of Misplaced Pages.

Indeed, if the anon has been editing here anonymously for seven years, I cannot be the only person with whom the (s)he has taken exception to in the past. However, because the anon has chosen to twist one of our most cherished Foundational ideals - that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, can edit here - and used it to avoid repercussions for their behavior, they should not be afforded the same protection that we afford to any other anon who comes here to actually add to the Project. The assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders by which we overlook extensive, recurring and nasty behavior. This user has abrogated their right to edit in our community; using Misplaced Pages instead to wage a protracted guerilla action against one or more users is not part of our core policies.

Since they have shown they cannot follow our rules, and instead use them to continue action against their fellow users, I think that Proposal One removes the problem user without really interrupting the contributions of similar IP accounts. - Arcayne () 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing with blocking the IPs he's caused trouble on is that he's clearly on a dynamic IP, which means someone else is also and theres a chance they could end up on a blocked IP (I know its a super-slim chance but still) Its a very extreme idea to ban IPs permanently. Heres an idea, I don't know if its possible, but is there a way you can block the IPs but still allow registration from them? That way if he does register whilst banned and then abuse Arcayne from an account, then we can sort it from there? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can make IP ranges so that they may only edit from accounts and not anon. -t BMW c- 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what about registering though? thats what im worried about. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, it's highly unlikely this will have to be enforced with long-term blocks at all, be it of ranges or individual IPs. Short blocks whenever he turns up again, depending of course on the intensity of his activities. In the unlikely event that more wide-reaching blocks should be necessary, ability for logged-in editors to edit through the block and ability to create new accounts through them are parameters that can be individually fine-tuned, just like we do with vandal blocks all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are still counting votes on this, I'd add my support to option 1. In practice, the two options are similar, since if a new IP shows up from this range who doesn't attack Arcayne it's unlikely that anyone will react to him in any way or connect him to this issue. The value of making this a ban is that any admin who notices the usual pattern will be able to block the IP without further ado. Most likely these blocks will be short, a month or less, and they will be anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. You do realize that if the ISP releases his dhcp release and gives him a new IP it isn't "creating a new account" and your usage of that indicates either a complete lack of understanding or an attempt to make something sound worse than it is. Your last CU failed I believe on an account you tried to tie to him. So do you have any evidence that he's actually created an account to harass you?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that for a moment: in every account listed in the RfCU, the anon had the IP for a day (two at the most) before the ISP would reassign a new IP address. However, the anon has had this particular IP (the one most recently blocked) since November 7th - over ten days. Now, for you or I, that's nothing, but those who've interacted with the anon know this is extraordinary in the extreme. I am reckoning that, knowing it would only hurt him/her if a new IP were to pop up amidst an AN/I specifically addressing all these multiple IP identities, the anon has chosen (as opposed to it being an ISP choice - and the ISP apparently hasn't changed since March) to either not reboot the modem (which is what I have assumed the user has done to also reboot their anonymity). In prior instance when the anon was saddled with a template on their talk page that connected them to their prior ids by admin reinforcement, that IP would go silent, and a new one would pop up a week or so later.

The last RfCU did not connect the anon to a known user. Perhaps it is my own bad faith assumption that the user is previously blocked or banned user, and my apologies to Jojhutton for disturbing him while trying to connect some dots about the anon. The current RfCU makes no such mistake, simply addressing the various 75.etc. IPs that keep popping up to attack my edits, and the prior checkusers have been useful in that the anon had previously admitted to editing under the anons denoted in bold there.

As for attack accounts, is it your contention that the anon never created an SPA/rebooted his/her modem simply to have it appear that more than one IP were complaining about my edits? - Arcayne () 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The current RFCU is pointless as all a RFCU is is to look at the underlying IPs to see if they're the same or similar. Since all you have are IPs, you're not checking anything. I'm not contending anything other than to tell you to stop claiming that this individual has made accounts to attack you unless you have a check user which says accounts are tied to him which you don't. You just have a mess of IPs from the same address. Which are not accounts. Personally I've had occasion where my IP has remained the same for months, and other times where it changed 2 or 3 times in a week. Such is the nature of a dynamically assigned IP address. Sometimes you can force a new IP address by rebooting/leaving your modem off for the lease period (typically a day) and sometimes your ISP just decides to randomly reshuffle all the leases, or there is some other problem going on which causes everyone to grab a new ip address. Generally rebooting your modem doesn't grant a new ip address as the DHCP process will typically give you the same address you had if the lease is still valid, or if no one else has taken that address after the lease is up your modem will ask for the last address it had. So it actually can be a little difficult to get a new IP address that way. If you're not familiar with DHCP and how it works I suggest reading up on, its not always possible on a system you don't control to go and get yourself a new IP address on demand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would submit that the RfCU is only pointless in that it points out the obvious - that the same user is responsible for most if not all of the IPs. Maybe take a closer look at the most current RfCU; I've listed the prior RfCU's regarding the user, and the anon him/herself acknowledged that the IP addresses were theirs. All I did was point out the string of IPs editing in the same RfCU, and the anon derailed the process by admitting that they were his/hers. Not failed mind you, derailed.

And while my IT-skills aren't anywhere near your apparent level, I am not sure they are really required when the same user keeps popping up in articles you are working to attack your edits. In the same ways. Using the same arguments. And the same unpleasant behavior. I mean, I didn't pull the IP addresses out of the air, Crossmr; they came up because the same person kept attacking me in places where they never had before. It started out in Fitna, but then spread to almost everywhere I edited. The result was antagonizing, creepy and annoying as all get out. I am sorry, but I am not getting where you are coming from here. I mean, if you are asking to be spoon-fed diffs of what everyone else can feast upon themselves, maybe I am not the guy to do it. I realize that the list of IPs in the RfCU is daunting, but I am not the one who chose to edit from that many places, now am I? - Arcayne () 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to prove your case which this is about since you've chosen to make so many complaints about this IP. However many of the diffs I've been provided in the various attempts to show how bad this IP is, don't really show anything bad about this IP which is what makes me question the veracity of the claim here. A previous diff was provided to show how bad the IP was with the note of "see this edit summary" upon viewing the edit summary I found nothing wrong with it. It was a factual and accurate description of an edit made that appeared to be a legitimate edit. That's just an example. So far about 2 out of 3 edits being show as indications of problem don't indicate any problem. I've seen a few questionable diffs, but I've seen them from both sides. My point with the accounts comment is that claiming this IP has made accounts to harass you is wrong and can cause a bias. Someone might read that without actually checking think "wow this guy is bad". If you want to cause someone to be banned, do it on facts and not hyperbole. He's had a lot of IPs, but I don't see anything actually tying him to an account, and if the worst thing he has done is get hung up on a claim you made (which honestly for all your explanation, can still be interpreted as claiming multiple degrees, no where did you ever state when making those claims that those were just classes that were part of a single degree) then a site ban really isn't in order. A mutual restraining order is more in order as I've seen you get just as worked up about him as he gets worked up about you.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber..

I would like to ask for a specific injunction on the said page, that any uninvolved administrator who sees the page may give out a warning and immediately apply a block upon more than 1 reversion. From what I can tell, this kind of thing is already done on occasion for certain hotly contested pages. Doubtless, this page has already been brought up on the messageboards, and as such, consensus on this may be difficult. But the edit warring is absolutely out of hand: . The page was just recently protected again to prevent warring from someone who had simply jumped on the page, started pressing the revert button, and who has that kind of history elsewhere. This ought to be avoided by a simple warning. Quite simply put: certain parties are harming the page much more than helping it, and perhaps should not be able to throw around reversions. The page is of high interest, and should not be locked regularly.

As a side note, I regret having reverted the page even once, so I am no longer a neutral party. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

as one who jumped in and reverted, i feel i must say something. when i read the talk page BEFORE i did anything else it was fairly clear that one person was going against the will of many others. there was also replacement of sourced info with unsourced by said person. these two problems seemed like they needed fixing.

as for your jumping in and reverting after requesting protection, i would say it was probably unnecessary. you could have just reverted and left it at that. if anyone continues to revert and revert and revert then i would say your suggestion to issue warnings would suffice. no need to block the page, just block those who cant take a hint.

for what its worth, i am out to help the page and if you read the talk page i think you will see that. Brendan19 (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia just did it for 72 hrs. DGG (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read comment in full. Not a protection request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Even where compromises are "accepted" this page attracts some interesting new edits, and trying to keep it to a "normal" article is difficult indeed. Collect (talk) 01

01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Magog, and also regret having edited the page to where it is no longer appropriate for me to lock it. This article brought out the worst in some great editors; I hate to say Collect above is one of them. I really hope that interest in this dies down. Tan | 39 02:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It should very shortly, given the end of the election. There has been a lot of edit-warring, BLP arguments, and overall incivility marring the article. Perhaps the majority of this article can be merged into McCain 08 when interest does die down, with a redirect in the article's place. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Message boards? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, noticeboards, cough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The election is over, 11 days ago. Why would anyone still be messing around with that character's page? Baseball Bugs 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? I suppose just because they can. Did you read some of the posts? <g>. Collect (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know enough about Joe the Plumber to know that (1) his knowledge of world affairs makes Sarah Palin look like an expert; and (2) the GOP completely mischaracterized the exchange between Joe and Obama, and that the public didn't buy it. He's history. In another year, they'll be putting his article up for AFD. Unless he gets that record deal. Or actually becomes a plumber. Baseball Bugs 15:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Or stands for elected office . – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He might be Palin's running mate in 2012. And don't laugh. They laughed about Ronald Reagan, too. Baseball Bugs 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. This post explains why, earlier today, I suddenly had an inexplicable sense of terror, as though a goose had walked over my grave...in combat boots. GJC 08:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan, et al

I'm sorry to bring this here but there is some rather unpleasant edit-warring on Murder of Gwen Araujo (formerly Gwen Araujo). Some editors feel that these people are only known for being brutally murdered. I tend to disagree but if consensus is that the most notable thing they've ever done is to be murdered then Misplaced Pages should be quite proud to get it right. In any case the effort seems to be to move LGBT hate-crime victims from being an biography to focusiing solely on their murder. In the cases of Murder of Gwen Araujo, Murder of Amanda Milan these were both quickly followed by "gee these people aren't notable at all"-ish discussions. These are rather silly as even a quick source search would show otherwise. the latest effort seems to be this. i have to take a break but would appreciate others looking into it. Cheers. -- Banjeboi 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• There does appear to be some edit-warring on those articles. By the looks of things, the only particularly notable thing that happened to any of these people were their murders, so that's what the article's should primarily focus on. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving these articles to Murder of... is the correct way of dealing with them. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

agreed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to look at this on a case by case basis. I don't think the wisest course is to move these while discussion is ongoing. AniMate 18:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What's really going on here? Matthew Shepard, of all symbolic figures, was moved to Murder of Matthew Shepard, clearly against consensus, and quite frankly, common sense. There's now an RFC on the talk page. Is this an effort to move people who have been murdered from LGBT bias to articles about their murders? I don't get the point, although per the opening dialog on Shepard's talk page regarding the move, "other lgbt and other pseudo-notable deaths", it's starting to become clearer. By the way, the user who left that note, Lihaas (talk · contribs), recently inserted information into the Lesbian article that defined the term as someone who comes from the Greek island of Lesbos, above the definition you and I and everyone else who speaks English uses the term for. Just so readers were clear on which is more important in this language. --Moni3 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are a few other slightly concerning edits regarding LGBT subjects in that user's edit history as well (though it's certainly not his main focus of editing). Worth keeping an eye on, certainly. Black Kite 11:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of citation by an IP user

I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185), whose referenced edits on the article Goguryeo language did not correspond to the original source.

Detected false citations can be divided into two types.

1. By altering deliberately the original source in favor of her/his purpose, her/his referenced edits are different from the contents of the original source. , (upper and middle one), (the lowerst one)
2. By adding reference, this user intended to support his faulty information, which is in fact not existent in the original source material at all. (lower one)

Basically, this user’s strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits by her/himself, so that the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have to keep constantly an eye on the user correcting her/his wrong edits.

Despite my three times warning, allowing plenty time (ca. 6 weeks) of self-correction, this user made no sincere reaction but just tried to cloud the main issue. S/he could not even realize the seriousness of her/his wrongdoing.

Considering her/his attempt to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) , , , , this user should be blocked indefinitely from working on this article Goguryeo language in order to prevent her/his further possible distortions of the original source materials for the wrong purpose. Above all, her/his abuse of citations not only degrades the authority of Misplaced Pages, but also affects badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Misplaced Pages. However hard one may work to correct intentionally wrong referenced edits by trying to verify the correctness of citations, such cases will happen again and again, if there is no ban for abusing citations.

As a preliminary measure, the article Goguryeo language should be semi-protected in order for this anonymous user not to make further significantly disruptive edits with irresponsible attitude.

False citations made by this user are listed here - User:Jagello/cites.

Jagello (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before. For some reason, Jagello absolutely refuses to make any attempt to discuss this on either the talk page of the article or the talk page of the opposite party (who has a static IP), and has only communicated using belligerent edit summaries and a "final warning" template. Until that happens, I suggest that this complaint be ignored. (Note that the complaint of misrepresentation of sources is impossible to verify for anybody who doesn't know the Goguryeo language, a Korean language that has not been used for 1300 years.) looie496 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken up this issue again, because all my previous comments on this matter are already archived. First of all, I have made it clear from the beginning that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation but the matter of false referenced edits. So it is not even necessary to know a single word of the Goguryeo language. Maybe some knowledge of Japanese is needed to understand the paper written by Itabash Yoshizo: 板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages through the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language." False citations made by this user are listed here - User:Jagello/cites.

Jagello (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

98.18.130.129 et al

{{Resolved}}

98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted abuse to the subject of Talk:Michael Rosenblum after replacing a warning on that IP's talk page, for earlier abuse, with "Fuck off"; and doing the same to the talk page of another IP (75.91.74.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which has also abused Rosenblum; as have other IPs from the same ISP (Windstream Communications Inc): 98.17.164.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); 75.91.74.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also one from the US military: 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using identical terms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Barneca has sprotected the article, and I blocked the most recent ip for 31 hours. Hopefully this is an end to it (for a while, at least).LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing: , . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a high traffic talkpage, so if there is a spate of ip vandalism then a request for a short semi protection could be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that. Meanwhile 98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 174.131.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are both involved in the same abusive behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 162.39.211.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Offsite Attack

This was found on David Shankbone's weblog:

The first was Bedford Crenshaw, User:Bedford (photo, right), who on his Misplaced Pages User page proclaims the United States the "second greatest country ever." What's the greatest country ever? The pro-slavery Confederate States of America.

Since Bedford was desyoped for something similar, I believe that sanctions are in order for this over the top personal attack. Dodad Pro (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: All this weblog is doing is stating exactly what is currently on User:Bedford's user page. Unless I am missing something, I see no offsite attack - and I'm not sure it would be relevant to Misplaced Pages even if there were. Tan | 39 17:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Davy said more than that about me, and he complained about other users as well. Davy's blog is also higher profile than my Myspace. Looks like if you know the right people, you can get special privileges.--Gen. Bedford 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the man's blog. He can say whatever he wants, as far as I can tell. Unless it is a threat, then he did nothing wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I read it and don't see the problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a list, somewhere, of greatest countries ever? Sounds like the sort of thing we really should have. --Pete (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was not desysopped for something similar. He was desysopped for his on-wiki behavior and epithets directed at other editors. This was done by Jimbo. But thanks for the links to Shankbone's blog, always a good read. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bedford was sanctioned for an “off-Wiki” remark in which he used the term ”Feminazi”. Shankbone used his weblog to not so subtly call Bedford a racist.

But I would agree with the, it seems that there are different standards for different editors here. Dodad Pro (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So who's sockpuppet are you? _{assuming good faith doesn't need we have to become brain dead} --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember giving up the right to free speech when I signed up. If his actions at Misplaced Pages are not in question, then there is no issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. Is the information untrue? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tan appears to be saying that the blog is simply recreating the same information that is found on User:Bedford page. Right now, the blog is borking links, so I can't verify, but I take Tan's word for it. Since it happened outside of Misplaced Pages, does it matter? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The blog's categories appear to be borken, but the relevant text is on the frontpage; Tan is correct. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No issue here. David was only repeating a statement Bedford himself made on his userpage. Grsz 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dodad, as Jimbo clearly states here the desysopping was for both on and off-wiki conduct, either of which was egregious enough to warrant pulling the bit. And here is the diff in which Bedford calls female Misplaced Pages editors "feminazis" in an edit summary on-wiki, not off. Please stop lying on this noticeboard. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In actuality, no, it doesn't make a difference, since it's off-Wiki and has no bearing on what happens here. But if the information is true, then Bedford or his supporters don't have a leg to stand on in complaining. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying a millipede doesn't have a leg to stand on. But then, I no longer expect better.--Gen. Bedford 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While I suspect you are over-estimating the plurality of your alleged supporters, I can only advise you to take this million millipede march of yours somewhere else. — CharlotteWebb 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. No personal attack on-wiki, and nothing revealed in the blog that hasn't been revealed on Bedford's userpage. This is an off-Misplaced Pages blog, and there is nothing that can be construed as offensive, especially in light of what you've penned on your user pages Bedford. As for Bedford's desysop, it was for comments he made on-wiki, in the calling of other editors "femi-nazi"'s, and was subsequently desysoped by Jimbo. seicer | talk | contribs 01:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing offensive on my either; I guess I didn't bother making the right friends.--Gen. Bedford 02:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been "gangraping" you the whole time? seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps its the threats to pay a visit to anyone who "slanders" you. I dunno, it seems like there are far more reasons than the "feminazi" stuff why people don't particularly want to interact with you, littlelone give you tools. Now you have carried this feud over to Talk:Public image and reception of Sarah Palin. "just the uploader craving attention, so he posed for the pic, and then uploaded it for the world to see." When I told him it's not me in the photo, he basically says I'm lying. Frankly, I stand by my original request for a block back from his edit-warring on Rush Limbaugh over sourced, factual information. Now he's edit-warring over at Public image and reception of Sarah Palin and over a photo he swears is me. Oh well. --David Shankbone 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually, consensus was with me that the stuff you wanted to add to Rush Limbaugh was not factual, and smacked of recentism. I copared the two photos, side by side, and its the came guy. Do other wish to vote Confirmed, Plausible, or Busted?--Gen. Bedford 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, Bedford, my Hazel-green eyes I've had all my life have suddenly gone dark, piercing blue. And my bushy eyebrows and slanty eyes when I smile have all been taken care or for an upcoming appearance on Nip/Tuck. Or, more likely, it's time to update your lenses, or maybe try out a new pair to see if they can bring out your cheekbones a bit more. --David Shankbone 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
      • The (same?) cosmetic surgeon performed a dimplectomy on DS's chin in time for the placard-waving shot. The two men pictured are manifestly different individuals; and for Bedford Crenshaw to keep insisting that they are one and the same is simply to keep calling DS a liar -- an egregious personal attack, repeated several times now. The man adamantly refuses to present civil, relevant arguments at Talk:Public image and reception of Sarah Palin and his overriding interest there appears to be to pursue his personal vendetta regardless. This really needs to be dealt with properly. It's getting way too much like that blond geezer in Desperate Housewives. Next thing you know, David Shankbone will go missing and Misplaced Pages will suddenly burn down. — Writegeist (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible duplicate user account

User:SIMONSMITH and User:Simonsmith are editing the same articles and are probably the same person. However, I hesitate to call this a case of sockpuppetry, because I don't think there's an intention to mislead.

What's the best way to handle this -- drop a note on both talk pages asking if they are one and the same to just use one account? WP:SOCK wasn't clear on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the edits are few and far between, I don't think it's much of a big deal. May want to ask him to stick with one though, and tell him he can redirect one user and talk page to the other. Grsz 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You could ask them to opt for one or the other, but otherwise it's usual to point them at {{Doppelganger}} to avoid confusion. --Rodhullandemu 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now creating a sockpuppet to argue on here brings up another issue: Stopitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we maybe have a checkuser run to determine if Stoprightnow is a sock of Simonsmith or just a general troll? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it was anything other than a troll.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having to comment and run last night. I'll drop the user a friendly note. I don't think pointing them to {{Doppelganger}} will be helpful. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromised account?

User continually re-creating deleted content

Aaronshavit (talk · contribs) is continually recreating a deleted article. The history of the article is somewhat lengthy; he first tried to re-write the Racism and Zionism article, and when his changes were rejected, he created the article in his userspace, User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations. He made a total of 3 edits to the page in August 2007, and then instantiated it into the article space as Israel and Racism, which was subsequently deleted via an AfD as a poorly-written and biased WP:POVFORK (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israel and racism). He made one more edit to his personal copy; it was then nominated for deletion, which failed (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations). He made one further edit to his copy, in July 2008 - a total of 5 edits in all to the main copy, all fairly minor.

In August 2008, the article it was a POVFORK of, Racism and Zionism, was deleted (see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Racism_and_Zionism). In October, his POVFORK was also put up for deletion, with the nominator describing it as an "Abandoned soapbox being treated as an article, POV pushing in userspace", and noting that it came up second in various Google searches. This time the consensus was to delete (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)).

Since then Aaronshavit has recreated the article 3 times, first as User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism on October 10, which I deleted on October 12 as a WP:CSD G4, then as User:Aaronshavit/racism and Zionism on November 7, which I deleted again on November 11 as a WP:CSD G4. At that time I warned him on his Talk page not to re-create the page. However, today, November 17, he has again recreated the article User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. At no time has he made any substantive modifications to his copies, and I believe his use of modified names for each copy may have been for the purpose of avoiding detection (so that it wouldn't show up on the watchlist of anyone involved in the deletion).

Given this is his third re-creation of deleted material, and that he has recreated it in defiance of warnings not to do so, I was planning to block him, but thought I would present the issue here for a discussion of the length of that block. Is 24 hours for a first offense reasonable? Or, given that he edits intermittently, and might not even notice a 24 hour block, is a longer block reasonable? Jayjg 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there's nothing wrong with starting at 24 hours, then escalating as necessary. I'm taking as given that there's strong community consensus that this material isn't coming back. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Given the six-day period between recreations a week makes more sense. 24hrs will not prove a meaningful deterrent. -- Y not? 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave unblocked for now, reiterate the warning in the most specific possible terms ("If you re-create that article in substantively the same form again, I will block you.") and then see what happens (possibly a second admin should be the one to provide the new warning, and I'd be happy to do so if consensus is that that's the right route). This warning should probably also include an explanation of WP:DRV, if the user believes that the deletion decision at MFD was somehow in error. In the event of a further re-creation, I don't think an indef block would be out of order, as the account would be showing the intention to continue violating policy indefinitely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any policy on what one can keep in UserSpace (previous discussions I've seen spoke of unnecessary duplication of unsatisfactory material/abandoned - that seems not to be the case). I'm using similar such pages either for code or for other people's reference - I don't even update them very often.

And for Jayjg to get on his high horse on this topic is puzzling indeed, since he actually recreated a notorious "SOAP-BOXING" (and personally unpleasant) UserSpace article here. I think we're entitled to expect a bit of consistency here. PR 18:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the material was a re-creation of material specifically deleted after an MFD discussion. If MFD's to have any meaning, you can't just re-create deleted material ad nauseum. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella‎

Minor politician, whose bio is the recurring subject of a long-term edit war. Personally, I'd like to see the article trimmed of all non-essential information, but this is a continuing battleground for partisan bickering. Please consider page protection, if needed. JNW (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected on the m:wrong version. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a editing dispute resolution procedure? Isn't that the better place to solve this kind of issue? UN111 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:The REAL TheJunner

This individual had been creating rapid-fire abusive sockpuppets and was also wreaking havoc from an IP. I think this sock may still be unblocked. Just thought I should let someone know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, thankfully. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

• Resolved Blocked for username violation. Spartaz 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A new single-purpose account, DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs) is making many somewhat controversial edits (such as deleting the "Criticism" section) to Jewish Internet Defense Force. Things had been very quiet there since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on October 4, 2008. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This account appears indistinguishable from Einsteindonut in terms of interests and behaviors. Whether it is them, or a sympathizer following the same agenda does not matter, per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. What shall we do? I think we should consider whether to block them as a sock. Perhaps a checkuser could take a quick look. I've invited the user to comment here. Jehochman 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this need a checkuser? The name alone is probably blockable, but combined with single-purpose account behaviour and obvious previous editing experience, this is a clearly disruptive second account. An experienced editor can make controversial edits under his own account or not at all. (Blanking sections of a controversial article takes us clearly into 'bad-hand' sock territory.) The only useful purpose that a checkuser might serve here is to clear the drawer of sleeper socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is "drama?" My apologies. I don't know what you are talking about. I just learned about the JIDF from the Ha'aretz piece and didn't feel the WP article was very fair to the organization, so I created an account to help make it better. I accidentally took out the "Criticism" section upon making edits, and re-added it. However, I'm not sure what WP's policy is of using articles which are originally in German. I feel if criticism is to be made about an organization, that we should only rely upon an accurate, FAZ approved, translation. I'm not sure one is available? --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, I added other cited material from the new Ha'aretz article, which was quickly reverted by Nagle. It was new background information which I thought was important. --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have indefed the account for a username vio. It also looks like a sock to me but as this is clearly a disruptive name we can do without it. Spartaz 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is a good idea for thoroughly investigating sock puppetry that may involved use of multiple accounts or block or ban evasion. It would be best to connect the account to a master account and empty any sock drawer. Is there a CU hanging around or do we need to bring this case over to WP:RFCU? Jehochman 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we list it as there is no rush now. Spartaz 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm am shutting down for the night. Please do list it, because there seems to be a reasonable basis. Jehochman 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a disruptive username? Huh? It only is one because of who it might be, and/or the edits they have made. I hate to say so, but NPOV is a key policy, and how many times a day does wikidrama occur in this forum because people are POV-pushing. I hate to use the example, but "Master of Puppets", based on meaning alone would be considered more disruptive (no offence intended). If someone created the usernames "AlwaysAGF" and "DontBeAnEditWarrer", are we going to delete them too? -t BMW c- 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I partially agree with you but I also think that such a name is somewhat indicative of puppetry. Think about it, POV Pusher is uniquely Wikipedian lingo, it's unlikely that a new user would use it right off the bat... L'Aquatique 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that it's not a new user - but we're talking right now about a block due to the username alone. Prove it's a sock (or have a little more duck-like properties than an obvious knock-off of policy) and I'm good with it. Maybe someone wants to properly move to a new name (highly unlikely, but it can happen). -t BMW c- 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person reverted by POVPusher, I did consider coming here or going to a senior admin but decided not to. I also considered the POVPusher = ED equation, but POVPusher didn't react to my reference to JIDF as "your lot" whilst ED always vigorously denied any such connection. It's unfortunate that the JIDF are so wedded to the glamour of clandestine action that they can't create an account with their name that contributes to the talk page alone. Then they could draw our attention to new articles about them and complain about and explain anything they considered misrepresentation. Instead they have this series of edit warrior accounts that are transparently connected to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: within a few hours after the block of DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs), a new user account, Howdypardner (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created and began editing only the JIDF article. Something to watch; no action requested at this time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy's "Glad I could help" on the talk page acknowledges that this is the same person as POVPUSHER. Obviously not sockpuppetry, as it's overt, and not block evasion as they were given explicit permission to come back in a new guise. (The above is in relation to POVPUSHER, obviously the prior CU suggestion is different.) There are potential 3RR issues but it depends how new we regard this user as.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Howdy has no user page or talk page, and I hadn't noticed that note on the article's talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, DontbeaPOVPUSHER was blocked indef for username, but this doesn't rule out his return as Howdypardner. The latter has been cautioned against edit-warring on his Talk, and has not reverted since 18:18 UTC on 17 November. Between the two of them they are over 3RR but is unlikely that action will be taken if the reverting has actually stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Rfcbeach

Rfcbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of Rfcbeach137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvio image from Canon USA and calls it his own. Image must also be deleted from Commons. Dr.K. (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He actually uploaded many more copyvio images. I have reverted them all. But someone has to inform Commons about this avalanche of copyvios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sock, warned sockmaster. I'll ask the guys at commons to check this out. Thanks for reporting it! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Master of Puppets for the swift action. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Contacted SterkeBak who will look after images. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again. Cheers. Dr.K. (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick attention

Hi. Could someone please take a look/whack at Iridonian Jagi? It probably should've been deleted under CSD like the creator's other Wookieepedia(?) copy-and-paste -- but my CSD request was removed because the article was already prodded. The article creator removed the prod, but given the short editing history and bias toward his work, I restored it. Nevertheless, this seems a pretty clear cut example of something that should not be here. --EEMIV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Deleted because it fails WP:FICT. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a speedy reason. It should have gone to AFD, been snowballed to death and then deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sauve.sean returns to edit war

Sauve.sean (talk · contribs) has returned from a block for edit warring as IP 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs) (note his comments on the Suave.sean talk page to establish his identity). He is now edit warring at Same-sex marriage as seen here . He has also promised to continue his edit war, referring to it as "war" . Would an admin please step in and handle this returning POV warrior? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely the same person. Sauve.sean and his IP blocked for a week. Spellcast (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User switched to a different IP in same range; that IP was blocked, page protected for three days. Good night. OhNoitsJamie 07:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one: - blocked 24 hours for puppetry and block evasion. L'Aquatique 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one at IP 75.168.214.145 (talk · contribs). Denies being a sock of Sauve.sean, but admits to being the same IP user that was blocked for disruption last night. Edits are still anti-wikipedia, NPOV rants . Is semi-protection a better path than blocking the IPs? Dayewalker (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean POV rants.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doink. Yep, you're right. Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reopening this. User is now socking with multiple IP's, I've blocked the ones that show up but it's sort of like playing whack-a-mole. I'm thinking a rangeblock might be in order here but the idea of placing one myself is the stuff of nightmares. I absolutely know I'll block the entire country of Singapore or something like that. Anyone else feel up to it? Looks like the range is 75.168.2**.***- how many addys would that be? L'Aquatique 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

255 * (255-all the 2xx) = 39525 -t BMW c- 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whack! L'Aquatique 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to wrap it up, the editor's name is Sauve.sean, not Suave. I misspoke, and he is anything but suave in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back. He's slipped through the cracks at 75.168.209.210 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Still active, and stepping up his POV attacks at DYK, this time . Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the range is too big to do a rangeblock. We're just going to have to keep blocking on sight and wait for him to lose interest... L'Aquatique 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara

Administrator Ricky81682 keeps removing good portion of this article claiming lack of reliable resources. See . The resources are given - the only problem is - Ricky does not read the reference given there - see .--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been full-protected by SoWhy (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource, put the sources on the page and if you are really using those sources, why revert to a version with different lyrics (slightly, not a big deal) than what you are posting? Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise. We had a third-opinion, nobody else commented (beyond their personal analysis of US and Croatian copyright laws) on the idea that we shouldn't just post the entire lyrics (to a song with multiple versions). Brzica, put an editprotected on the page and get someone else to add that version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said - references are already in the text - all you have to do is to read it. They are all online accessible. Yes, you said this too

• 07:25, 17 September 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (1,140 bytes) (lyrics are copyrighted and so cannot be included)

• which appeared to be wrong. (Hate crime texts are not copyrightable - as I explained already). So, you are jumping from one to another non-existent problem. And then threatening to block me for telling you that you are wrong. Also, you removed half of the Magnum Crimen article falsely claiming that the removed part is not sourced. And again threatened to block me if I put it back! Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise - what compromise you are looking for if you are removing text and not improving it at all???--Brzica milos etc (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I'm not going to keep arguing with you that your interpretation of US and Croatian copyright law are not the standard here. Policy says to use limited version of lyrics, especially when there are multiple versions (and when we are claiming that a living person may or may not have sang one version). I've said before that I would accept sourced lyrics but what part of this, and this (excluding the other people) indicates an attempt to use a source. Either use the source and put it in the article or it doesn't go in. I don't want it at all, but you are going to use it properly and stop reverting to get your way. Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). That is not the way things work. I'm not going to rehash Magnum again but claiming that other users will eventually add the exact source of information is not the same as saying it is sourced. What part of this and this are sourced? The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I got involved in this when I offered a third opinion that I hoped represented a compromise between the two viewpoints; it has developed into what is, without question, the most surreal experience I've had on Misplaced Pages. Ricky81682 has now suggested a RfC and short of keeping the article permanently protected forever and ever, I feel that an RfC offers the best hope for the article.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

Slow-burning edit war here, with editors reverting and telling each other to "see talk", which no-one has contributed in over a year. Questionably sourced material seems to be at the heart of it. Can an uninvolved admin take a look please? Gracias, the skomorokh 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to a non-contentious version, and protected it until further notice. Any admin who feels this is a problem is free to revert me, but I think there might be BLP issues here, and I don't like the tone that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) uses in his edits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attack on John Calvin article

User:Budwhop, User:Iamabreakdancer, User:83.105.17.82 are sockpuppets vandalising the article. Please help. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Edelbrock

Can someone uninvolved keep an eye on Edelbrock, and more specifically the impressively lame edit war that's been raging for the past couple of weeks between multiple editors over the addition of a long list of every single component this company makes to the article? Thus far we've had accusations of vandalism against those who remove it; some extremely dubious use of Huggle as a high-speed editwarring tool (I've already left 3RR and Huggle-misuse warnings on the talkpages of all involved in that particular spat); socking to get around 3RR; one party reporting an editor who tried to remove the "parts" list to AIV as a vandal, citing each of their edits as separate examples of their vandalism… I was hoping it would die down after I issued a bunch of warnings last week, but it now seems to have started up again. Looking at the talk page, complete with thoughtful debate like this, this article seems to have a history of storm-in-a-teacup flareups. NB: I've not currently notified the editors involved of this thread, as I'm not suggesting anyone take any action against anyone involved and IMO we don't need another ANI flareup; if anyone thinks they ought to be notified, obviously feel free. – iridescent 17:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, I did like the Edelbrock "Huggle Series" of performance parts. Those were the good ol' days. -t BMW c- 17:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-legal threat by User:Rescirscir

(relocated from top of page so it gets more notice) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) :Thx—sorry for posting in wrong spot! Good Ol’factory 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Temple Lot, I reverted some edits by User:Rescirscir for the reasons I then provided on the talk page. In short, the edits included some claims about a living person that were unsourced. (Well, there were "sources", but they were either completely unrelated weblinks, links to geocities.com, or YouTube videos. I discussed the problems in more detail in my comment.)

User:Rescirscir responded with a somewhat cryptic comment on my talk page that I was being "monitored". I asked for clarification, and received a response on the article talk page that said I was "cyberstalking" and that he wouldn't argue with me because "I don't need to". After this, the editor included the following link: , which is a news release about the May 2008 passage of a Missouri anti-cyberstalking law.

As an admin, I haven't had much experience with legal threats, and I'm unsure of how serious this example would be, but I wanted to bring it here mainly because of the past history of the page. In isolation, I don't think this would have necessarily been a huge deal, but Temple Lot has a history of weirdness: User:Jsmith 51389 (who was probably the arsonist in question spoken of in the article) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats a number of months ago, and there's quite a history of various "redlinked" editors making similar (though far from identical) edits to the article in question (including some by User:Jeh akuse, who was blocked, and some by User:CH 82).

Thanks. Good Ol’factory 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – This would be User:MarthaFiles. I've blocked the account for sockpuppetry. See the revision history of Arabism for examples (I had totally forgotten that I had since this before). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards